19 ms·
It's almost like Ukraine isn't as trustworthy, and Russia isn't as untrustworthy as we're being asked to believe. Weird, huh?
by JohnnyLarue 3y ago
It's almost like Ukraine isn't as trustworthy, and Russia isn't as untrustworthy as we're being asked to believe. Weird, huh?
- The_Colonel 3y agoI wonder what in this article makes you believe Russia is trustworthy.
- troyvit 3y ago<meta>It's lame when there's one comment on a post, and it's being down-voted instead of replied to.</meta> I agree that Ukraine has problems which it's inconvenient for MSM to focus on. That said I can only imagine what I'd do if I was in their shoes. It's war, they're the little guys, they've had a history of a fair amount of corruption, and they face an existential threat. It's not like it's something my country wouldn't do if they felt they had to. It may not even have been state actors, kind-of like some theories about the Nord pipeline explosion.[1] Heh, as far as Russia being less untrustworthy than they are presented to be? Let's just say they have a ton of work to do before I'd believe that. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabotage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2022_Nord_Stream_pipeline_sabo...
- The_Colonel 3y agoFollow the incentives. Destruction of the NS2 benefits Ukraine, I always suspected it was someone from Ukraine or the West. Russia destroying it never made sense. But Russia has used nuclear scare several times, it's part of their playbook, because deniable nuclear FUD works in their benefit. Western public is very sensitive about this topic and the reaction won't be "we need to escalate", rather appeasement towards Russia. I don't see how Ukraine would benefit, the theories laid out in the article don't make sense IMHO.