6 ms·

It’s unclear if it penalizes discussion of Ukraine equally though. There have been many stories that have come to light in the last few months. Merkel and Mac

It’s unclear if it penalizes discussion of Ukraine equally though. There have been many stories that have come to light in the last few months. Merkel and Macron admitting the Minsk agreements were used to buy time for CIA and British to arm rebels since 2014 was big story. Large amounts of money the US has supplied Ukraine and lack of oversight to where this is going (the total US aid now surpasses Russia’s entire military budget per year). But this same poster (aakashg0) claims these stories have been suppressed, even though they would be counter to dominant narrative in western media. I think algorithmic moderation on a particular topic is hard; you still need someone in there boosting the stories you want people to read and downplaying the stories you don’t.

stefan_ 4y ago
Tell us more, who are the "rebels" in this story and what arms did Merkel send? (Is this what news in the PRC feel like?)
- wunderland 4y ago
  The rebels are right-wing paramilitary groups. And Germany didn’t send any weapons during 2014-2022, but she said in a Der Spiegel interview from Oct 2022 that during the Minsk negotiations, it became clear that the US’ objective was to buy time to secretly arm Ukraine (which is newsworthy because this would imply a violation of the Minsk agreement).
  - stefan_ 4y ago
    So in a year the US has sent more than Russia's yearly defence budget, yet Minsk (which one, even?) was needed to secretly (what was secret?) arm the Ukraine over 8 years? Who are the "right-wing paramilitary groups" and if they are Ukraine, since this is who you are alleging is being armed, why are they rebels if they are government-aligned?
    - wunderland 4y ago
      This is all very easy stuff for you to verify for yourself and wasn’t the original point of my top comment (which was that these stories are hard to suppress without manual effort— although apparently many Americans are unaware). But to be clear, the US was funding Ukrainian rebel groups (right-wing paramilitary organizations) 2014-2022 but through clandestine means. This is much more difficult to do without the support of congress because the support has to be indirect — the funding has to be off-the-books — because this was a violation of the Minsk agreement. Since 2022, the floodgates have opened and the US is now openly sending money and weapons systems, now totaling over $100B since the Russian invasion. The Russian Defence budget is estimated to be $70-80B per year.
      - Fauntleroy 4y ago
        The gigantic key factor in all this that you're leaving out is that Ukraine is defending itself against a full-on invasion by a hostile neighbor.
      - stefan_ 4y ago
        The "CIA and the British" clandestine funding of "right-wing paramilitary Ukrainian rebel organizations" with diplomatic support from "Merkel and Macron via Minsk" is "all very easy stuff" for me to verify? "many Americans are unaware" of this story because it's nonsense that puts together various tidbits to spin a yarn long enough to envelop the world.
      - deleted 4y ago
        [deleted]
      - ianburrell 4y ago
        Which side in the conflict are you talking about? It is very unlikely that the US was funding the Russian-backed rebel groups. It is likely that they were supporting the Ukraine-supported paramilitary groups. Who are not rebels cause they were government supported and supporting.
        wunderland 4y ago
matthewdgreen 4y ago
I mean, the fact that the Ukraine re-armed itself after Russia invaded their territory isn’t news, is it? I think it was reported on pretty substantially. And a good thing too since they were invaded a second time, this time with a strike towards their capital. I sort of assumed that was obvious public knowledge and don’t understand why people are making it into a “story.”
YeBanKo 4y ago
> Merkel and Macron admitting the Minsk agreements were used to buy time for CIA and British to arm rebels since 2014 was big story. Wtf are you talking about? What rebels in Ukraine did CIA and British arm? Or is one of those “it’s complicated” comments?
kspacewalk2 4y ago
>Merkel and Macron admitting the Minsk agreements were used to buy time for CIA and British to arm rebels since 2014 was big story. You don't mean "rebels" (who were/are in fact simply Russia proxies), you mean the other side, Ukraine. Not sure what percentage of all arms delivered to Ukraine has come after February 2022, but it must be well north of 90%. So apparently all these plans to secretly and slowly arm Ukraine amounted to nothing, and it was the invasion itself that triggered the flow of arms. Some dastardly plan. BTW always love the not-at-all-loaded use of "admitted". >Large amounts of money the US has supplied Ukraine and lack of oversight to where this is going These are the kind of fact-free notions that seem to start their life in the TuckerCarlsonVerse and spread outward from there. Just saying there's "lack of oversight" does not make it so, particularly when there's plenty of oversight by the US gov't. In fact, oversight is one reason why the buildup of weapons supplies (in terms of quantity and weapons systems types) has been so gradual. The US wanted to make sure Ukraine's army knows what to do with the stuff and won't leave on the field of battle so that it ends up arming the enemy, like the Afghans did. >(the total US aid now surpasses Russia’s entire military budget per year). That's completely meaningless. Russia's military budget pays for many times more personnel and weapons systems than the equivalent number as part of the US military budget, because the purchasing power of, say, $1 million is vastly different when it's spent by the Pentagon in the US, paying US prices and employing Americans, or by the Russian MOD, paying Russian prices and employing Russians.
- bee_rider 4y ago
  >>(the total US aid now surpasses Russia’s entire military budget per year). > That's completely meaningless. Russia's military budget pays for many times more personnel and weapons systems than the equivalent number as part of the US military budget, because the purchasing power of, say, $1 million is vastly different when it's spent by the Pentagon in the US, paying US prices and employing Americans, or by the Russian MOD, paying Russian prices and employing Russians. It also seems misleading in the sense that, for example, we have a ton of Abrams tanks that the US military didn’t want, but that Congress has over time decided to buy. So if we send them to Ukraine, how should that be accounted for financially? I guess the cost of a gently used Abrams is pretty high but we already bought it and the value to us is pretty low.

stefan_ 4y ago

Tell us more, who are the "rebels" in this story and what arms did Merkel send? (Is this what news in the PRC feel like?)

wunderland 4y ago
The rebels are right-wing paramilitary groups. And Germany didn’t send any weapons during 2014-2022, but she said in a Der Spiegel interview from Oct 2022 that during the Minsk negotiations, it became clear that the US’ objective was to buy time to secretly arm Ukraine (which is newsworthy because this would imply a violation of the Minsk agreement).
- stefan_ 4y ago
  So in a year the US has sent more than Russia's yearly defence budget, yet Minsk (which one, even?) was needed to secretly (what was secret?) arm the Ukraine over 8 years? Who are the "right-wing paramilitary groups" and if they are Ukraine, since this is who you are alleging is being armed, why are they rebels if they are government-aligned?
  - wunderland 4y ago
    This is all very easy stuff for you to verify for yourself and wasn’t the original point of my top comment (which was that these stories are hard to suppress without manual effort— although apparently many Americans are unaware). But to be clear, the US was funding Ukrainian rebel groups (right-wing paramilitary organizations) 2014-2022 but through clandestine means. This is much more difficult to do without the support of congress because the support has to be indirect — the funding has to be off-the-books — because this was a violation of the Minsk agreement. Since 2022, the floodgates have opened and the US is now openly sending money and weapons systems, now totaling over $100B since the Russian invasion. The Russian Defence budget is estimated to be $70-80B per year.
    - Fauntleroy 4y ago
      The gigantic key factor in all this that you're leaving out is that Ukraine is defending itself against a full-on invasion by a hostile neighbor.
    - stefan_ 4y ago
      The "CIA and the British" clandestine funding of "right-wing paramilitary Ukrainian rebel organizations" with diplomatic support from "Merkel and Macron via Minsk" is "all very easy stuff" for me to verify? "many Americans are unaware" of this story because it's nonsense that puts together various tidbits to spin a yarn long enough to envelop the world.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - ianburrell 4y ago
      Which side in the conflict are you talking about? It is very unlikely that the US was funding the Russian-backed rebel groups. It is likely that they were supporting the Ukraine-supported paramilitary groups. Who are not rebels cause they were government supported and supporting.
      - wunderland 4y ago

matthewdgreen 4y ago

I mean, the fact that the Ukraine re-armed itself after Russia invaded their territory isn’t news, is it? I think it was reported on pretty substantially. And a good thing too since they were invaded a second time, this time with a strike towards their capital. I sort of assumed that was obvious public knowledge and don’t understand why people are making it into a “story.”

YeBanKo 4y ago

> Merkel and Macron admitting the Minsk agreements were used to buy time for CIA and British to arm rebels since 2014 was big story. Wtf are you talking about? What rebels in Ukraine did CIA and British arm? Or is one of those “it’s complicated” comments?

kspacewalk2 4y ago

>Merkel and Macron admitting the Minsk agreements were used to buy time for CIA and British to arm rebels since 2014 was big story. You don't mean "rebels" (who were/are in fact simply Russia proxies), you mean the other side, Ukraine. Not sure what percentage of all arms delivered to Ukraine has come after February 2022, but it must be well north of 90%. So apparently all these plans to secretly and slowly arm Ukraine amounted to nothing, and it was the invasion itself that triggered the flow of arms. Some dastardly plan. BTW always love the not-at-all-loaded use of "admitted". >Large amounts of money the US has supplied Ukraine and lack of oversight to where this is going These are the kind of fact-free notions that seem to start their life in the TuckerCarlsonVerse and spread outward from there. Just saying there's "lack of oversight" does not make it so, particularly when there's plenty of oversight by the US gov't. In fact, oversight is one reason why the buildup of weapons supplies (in terms of quantity and weapons systems types) has been so gradual. The US wanted to make sure Ukraine's army knows what to do with the stuff and won't leave on the field of battle so that it ends up arming the enemy, like the Afghans did. >(the total US aid now surpasses Russia’s entire military budget per year). That's completely meaningless. Russia's military budget pays for many times more personnel and weapons systems than the equivalent number as part of the US military budget, because the purchasing power of, say, $1 million is vastly different when it's spent by the Pentagon in the US, paying US prices and employing Americans, or by the Russian MOD, paying Russian prices and employing Russians.

bee_rider 4y ago
>>(the total US aid now surpasses Russia’s entire military budget per year). > That's completely meaningless. Russia's military budget pays for many times more personnel and weapons systems than the equivalent number as part of the US military budget, because the purchasing power of, say, $1 million is vastly different when it's spent by the Pentagon in the US, paying US prices and employing Americans, or by the Russian MOD, paying Russian prices and employing Russians. It also seems misleading in the sense that, for example, we have a ton of Abrams tanks that the US military didn’t want, but that Congress has over time decided to buy. So if we send them to Ukraine, how should that be accounted for financially? I guess the cost of a gently used Abrams is pretty high but we already bought it and the value to us is pretty low.