It’s not complicated. Pick an article from any of the sources listed in my earlier post, on another generally considered to be a serious member of the ‘MSM’, e.g the FT, The WSJ, the Independent, not some random internet rag, and provide a clearly reasoned argument as to its ‘fakeness’. This will then provide a good basis to discuss whether the original article, or the sources you use to show it is fake, are more credible.
SureWhat about the UK Telegraph?
Ok, that’s a start. So, to clarify, what you mean is that this is fake:Ok here it is again:
Putin ‘to declare all-out war on Ukraine on Russian Victory Day’, officials fear | The Independent
Vladimir Putin 'poised to declare all-out war on Ukraine' (telegraph.co.uk)
Still hasn't happened thankfully.
Anyway nice discussing with you.
Putin never intended to negotiate until Ukraine capitulated.As regards gestures of good will or good faith, Russian leaders did respond to early drafts in the first few weeks from Ukraine aimed at finding an agreement and withdrew about 2 thirds of their forces that were near Kyiv. Hungarian leader telling Putin over the phone to call an immediate ceasefire, and offering possibility of Hungary hosting peace talks was also said to have been received positively by Putin. None of this has yet resulted in an ceasefire however. And it is hard to know what is happening exactly at this moment, or what future proposals might be put forward.
The agreement was that Russia was taking huge losses and could not hold territory. IOW Russia was taking a butt kicking.What leads you to think that Russia’s retreat from Kyiv, after repeated failed attempts to take the city, was the result of some agreement?
SGOTI and SGOYT are many of the most believed news sources now.People who have done their "research" are uninformed and this is a uniform trait? So you claim some special knowledge of affairs then do you, do you claim special insight, that other people at least as intelligent if not moreso than you cannot somehow arrive at an informed position? What is this privileged access to reality you possess, that no one else who has done their research possesses? Do tell.
Ok here it is again:
Putin ‘to declare all-out war on Ukraine on Russian Victory Day’, officials fear | The Independent
Vladimir Putin 'poised to declare all-out war on Ukraine' (telegraph.co.uk)
Still hasn't happened thankfully.
Anyway nice discussing with you.
Frustrated army chiefs are urging the Russian president to drop the term “special operation” used for the invasion and instead declare war, which would enable mass mobilisation of Russians’
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘more basic’. The Telegraph cites this person as an expert:Ok how do we know that frustrated army chiefs were urging the Russian president? Is there some more basic source? There is no quote of anyone in particular.
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘more basic’. The Telegraph cites this person as an expert:
“The military are outraged that the blitz on Kyiv has failed,” Irina Borogan, a Russian expert close to Moscow security services, told The Telegraph.
What’s your angle here? Do you think the Telegraph and similar sources are simply making things up?
A lack of a strong reaction among military higher ups over the embarrassing performance of their troops would be pretty strange. No-one in the military likes to lose, regardless of whether they think the fight is just, or not.
However this struck , they say they are operating with a bar on airstrikes?
For some comparison, ‘air strikes’ when referred to by the Russian military means pulverising anything and everything, as in Grozny, Syria, Georgia, raining down total destruction in the attempt to cow the invaded populace into submission. By comparison Russian bombing in most of Ukraine (other than Mariupol) has been relatively restrained - relatively by Russian standards. They have also been unable to establish air dominance, and have lost a high number of aircraft since the beginning of the invasion, which makes air support of ground troops more challenging.Yes, ok: I can see now that there was more behind that from some other coverage which I had not seen eg: Vicious Blame Game Erupts Among Putin’s Security Forces - The Moscow Times
However this struck me, it says they are operating with a bar on airstrikes? There have been a lot of requests from Ukraine about getting a No Fly Zone. So has Russia been avoiding airstrikes then?
"Senior officers have therefore concluded that the Western alliance is fighting all out (through the supply of increasingly sophisticated weaponry) while its own forces operate under peacetime constraints like a bar on airstrikes against some key areas of Ukraine’s infrastructure."
That Russia is/was? Yes Russian forces have targeted soft civilian and some military posts for air strikes, but early on avoided damaging infrastructure they would need to use themselves for supply lines etc, railways and airstrips and so on. Putin’s original aim was to install a puppet regime, there was nothing to be gained by crippling Ukraine’s industry if the country would effectively become part of Russia. That has changed to some extent as that goal was not met. Plus Russia has a limited supply of the kind of smart munitions needed for precision strikes.
Throughout the conflict, from the beginning until now.Well several claims of airstrikes were made in the early part of the conflict.
You can take that seriously if you want. I’m guessing you’re not familiar with decades of Soviet disinformation, which this is a fine example of. You can take the Soviet out of the name, but you can’t take the Soviet out of Putin’s Russian octopus.Well several claims of airstrikes were made in the early part of the conflict. The Mariupol Theatre and the Maternity Hospital had both been said to be airstrikes, or bombs dropped. But there are claims on some websites they were not airstrikes and may have been staged?
New witness testimony about Mariupol maternity hospital ‘airstrike’ follows pattern of Ukrainian deceptions, media malpractice - The Grayzone
Throughout the conflict, from the beginning until now.
You can take that seriously if you want. I’m guessing you’re not familiar with decades of Soviet disinformation, which this is a fine example of. You can take the Soviet out of the name, but you can’t take the Soviet out of Putin’s Russian octopus.
If you don’t want to learn about that, you should at least read ‘the media’ regularly and widely. You’ll find it isn’t one uniform narrative, and over time how to distinguish between the fake and the real may gradually seep in.
How do you know its disinformation, and that what she says isn't the case? The Russians initially called her an actor, and then she told her story. How is that disinformation? Why would Russia bomb a maternity hospital? I try not to begin with a negative western stereotype about Russia in my mind. That perhaps they might be like us and be trying to avoid colateral damage.
Stereotype : "a widely held but fixed and oversimplified image or idea of a particular type of person or thing."
How do you know what is real here more than anyone else - as mentioned in another thread, people believe what they believe sometimes based on prejudices and because it fits their worldview.
That Soviet stuff has its own particular rhythm, like a kind of poetic meter. It goes backwards and forwards in a kind of imitation of someone weighing up a situation, but without actually doing that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?