HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a s

HAHAHAHA. You are something else. Like a pot calling a gray cat black, doubling down on hypocrisy. I will respond point by point but rarely have I seen such a slam dunk. > 1. You are repeating white house talking points... 2. You asked me to prove that your points align exactly with official US government and white house talking points? Well, here are just a few: > a) You consider that this invasion is totally unjustified and unprovoked... It doesn't matter about provocations its still unjustified. But i don't think it was provoked by anything other then Putins want to expand and recreate the Russian empire. I think the accidently posted "victory article" is very telling on this point ill quote some of it for you. >> Russia is restoring its unity - the tragedy of 1991, this terrible catastrophe of our history, its unnatural dislocation, have been overcome. Yes, at a high price, yes, through the tragic events of the virtual civil war, because now brothers separated by belonging to the Russian and Ukrainian armies are still shooting at each other - but Ukraine will no longer be anti-Russia. Russia is restoring its historical fullness by gathering the Russian world, the Russian people together - in its entirety of Great Russians, Belarusians and Little Russians. If we had abandoned this, allowed temporary division to gain a foothold for centuries, we would not only betray the memory of our ancestors, but would also be cursed by our descendants - for allowing the collapse of the Russian land. The 'tragedy of 1991' clearly refers to when Ukraine became an indepedent country from Russia, something that Russia sees as a slight and a terrible part of history. NATO isn't mentioned a single time in that victory article by the way. > b) you uncritically.... There are 0 active duty USA troops on the ground in Ukraine fighting in the Ukrainian army. I think you will find what killed the peace deals was when Ukraine retook Bucha and saw for their own eyes the horrors that Russia had left behind. Helping a country defend itself is not in way shape or form escalatory so i don't why you think America helping Ukraine defend itself is, America becoming involved in the war, anymore then every other country that has sent aid has 'become involved in the war'. No one has seriously considered giving Ukraine nukes, although ironically it would be fitting considering thats what ukraine gave up in exchange for promises that Russia would not do exactly what they are doing now. Are you able to admit that Russian soldiers, from the Russian army and not just random rebels where involved since 2014?, cause it doesn't seem like your ready for that reality yet. b) You’ve also not seriously been able to consider that the CIA has been heavily involvsd (this time they sat out apparently) and wilfully ignored all evidence I presented to the contrary, including the Yahoo story. Your Yahoo story doesnt say what you claim it does, it says that the CIA was training Ukrainian special forces in Ukraine this is 100% unsuprising. c) You’ve totally ignored Naftali Bennett’s bombshell revelation that US blocked the peace deal he negotiated as tanks were moving into Kyiv, and both Putin and Zelensky had agreed to a deal in principle. You ignore that Boris Johnson came to Kyiv and said Putin can’t be reasoned with and that, even if Ukraine is ready to sign with Russia, the US and UK are not. You only repeat official talking points, and ignore every inconvenient fact. Your ignoring that Naftali later retracted that statement entirely. >> In the interview, Bennett himself notes that it was not the US, France, or Germany that put an end to any peace talks. Rather, it was Russia slaughtering hundreds of civilians in a town outside the Ukrainian capital, a war crime discovered just about a month after the full-scale invasion began. >> "The Bucha massacre, once that happened, I said: 'It's over,'" Bennett recalled. Hey he thinks the same, to me Bucha was a massive turning point in the war. > d) You say that Putin started this war to restore the Soviet union, something he always wanted to do. Another talking point that is even beyond what the White House says, because it tries to at least not veer into unsupported conspiracy. It is more akin to the extreme partisan bias that democrats or republicans have. Do you want me to requote the victory article or is the reference to Ukraines succeeding from the Soviet Union in 1991 enough for you to know that this is obviously his goal?. > e) You believe Russia is 100% responsible, and must be 100% defeated becauss it cannot be trusted. Another official talking point that is far from reality. Some blame Putin, some blame all Russians. I believe the only person who can decide to leave Ukraine and end this war is Russia, and i think its very clear that Russia is only leaving with a massive defeat and will not willing leave before that. > f) You say that NATO is purely defensive. Another talking point. Purely and uttely defensive. Very pure. Yugoslavia and Libya are whataboutism. How convenient. Same words used (“whataboutism”, “freedom”, “democracy”) almost in concert, to shut down any critical thinking or conversation that challenges the official claims, which are repeated VERBATIM (“purely defensive”, “they hate us for our freedoms”, “weapons of mass destruction”, “hacked the election”, etc.) I said NATO never invaded Russia which is true, but you also never answered my question about the last time that Russia invaded a country in NATO?. > g) You say Russia has NO (not even a small one) legitimate reasons to be afraid of NATO in any way, shape or form. NATO is just people defending themselves against Russia, an aggressor country. Their red lines are illegitimate, and rejected out of hand. Every country (except US neighbors) has the right to make its own alliances and we will make sure of that. NATO is mainly a defensive alliance against Russia yes, thats why, when Russian aggression increases so does NATO membership thats pretty easy to see. 1) First of all, I call it a war. That already violates the “official” propaganda A lot of People call it a war now, even Putin has. >> https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/22/europe/putin-uses-word-war-fighting-ukraine-russia-intl-hnk/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/12/22/europe/putin-uses-word-wa... > 2) Second people who said NO TO WAR in Russia publicly got arrested for this. How can this be a vatnik position if the Russian government is arresting people for it? You didn't read what i said, i said that the people pushing peace that doesn't involve anything but Russias complete withdrawl from Ukraine and the restoration of Ukraines full 1991 border is a vatnik position. These people don't actually want peace they want to freeze the conflict or to give Russia a reward for the invasion. > 3) Third, I condemned Russia for arming rebels in Donbas and contributing to escalating the war since 2014. This may not be anti-Russian enough for you, but it is certainly not “uncritically accepting US propaganda”. YOU accept that CIA didnt do anything to escalate this proxy war! I don’t do anything of the sort. You going to condemn the Russian army getting involved in 2014 too?. 4) I also pointed out that Russia did far worse destruction in Grozny and Aleppo and Homs. You claim that is also a vatnik. I guess we need to redefine that term too, to be basically meaningless. Parts of Bakhmut look very similiar to Aleppo and Grozny, why don't you want to recongise the horrors of this war?. I had to snip some of it cause the comment was too long for HN.