331–340 of 530 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you have some better sources to offer than two random Twitter accounts which quite clearly sling Russian propaganda?
Pointing out evidence of a UK rag fabricating photos to fit a Western propaganda narrative is... Russian propaganda?!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we look at what happened in Tunisia or Libya after they got rid of their secular dictators (Gadaffi an Ben Ali), it doesn't have to be that way. They were also fears of them becoming islamic states, yet they didn't. If we look at Egypt, they could become again a dictatorship.
Libya is pretty much an Islamist and borderline slaver nation now. It’s much, much worse than it was under gaddafi. Tunisia is the only place the Arab spring might have been tentatively “successful”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> but it's hard to comprehend why Russia was unable to do anything at all Did you miss that Russia has to import cannon fodder, artillery grenades and missiles from North Korea and attack drones from Iran? I don't think they have any resources to spare in Syria at the moment.
There hasn't been a single scrap of evidence to support the claims of Russia using North Korean... there have however been several cases of the media getting caught lying about it, doctoring photos etc: https://x.com/AXChristoforou/status/1864324321960972298?t=4H... https://x.com/BowesChay/status/1864447294474457245?t=yK0OU-9... The North Korean claims appear to be complete lies, designed to make Russia look bad.
All of this to say, pointing out the Daily Mail's crap doesn't really indict "the media" as a whole. I don't think that one story is what American big general guy is referring to as "reports".
Russia definitely does look bad though, and that is no accident -- but I don't think it's the fake stories doing the heavy lifting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They have destroyed the rest of their industrial capacity and economy in the process, an outcome very much desired by US and friends.
Russia isn't that interesting any longer, economy wise. China is the competitor to the US nowadays. All Russia has is nukes and troll farms, and corruption.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
GDP is a measure of economic output. If your economy doesn't produce much then it is very hard to sustain a high intensity war.
Russia can turn into a war economy - which means GDP is nearly irrelevant. Right now they're doing warfare while still keeping the lights on at little inconvenience for the public. They can change that around.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Quick reminder that Russia first invaded Ukraine in 2014, before that they invaded Georgia and before that they took Chechnia. And yet even now the popular belief in the West is that the war in Ukraine will be the end of it and that some sort of a peace deal can hold.
Thank you. It has been incredibly frustrating to watch the modern appeasement movement repeat the mistakes of the 1930s. You cannot appease an expansionist power that's intent on restoring the glory of an empire from days gone by (real or imagined).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> a literal terrorist group who committed a terrorist attack killing innocent civilians in Turkey just over one month ago! Not condoning the attack, but it's also not that black and white. It was an attack on a defense contractor.
So, what, if Al Queda shot up a Boeing facility that would all be fine then? And so was the attack on the Pentagon?
Rebel? How about we just call them for what they are, Turkish proxies in the north and US proxies in the east.
These "moderate rebels" are literally Al Qaeda and ISIS, but western media is manufacturing consent for them in real-time: [0] https://x.com/AlanRMacLeod/status/1865009325669818430?t=r-Pr... I'd also note that HTS is a proscribed terror organisation in the UK - yet nobody is having their doors kicked in for supporting them, in stark contrast to those publishing the truth about Israel, Palestine and Lebanon.
[1]: https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/the-moderate-jihadist-l...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That link I gave is propaganda BS. It claims the syrian army gave the terrorists( SDF) control over the new areas, while in reality they fought with US support against iranian and syrian regime militias. So that iran could not send support without fighting their way through it, maybe a turning point in this war. It was just to illustrate that Erdogans goals are not peace, after Assad is gone.
That's all well and good. Could you please reply to my other question? I'm very curious where this notion is coming from.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's what I'm thinking too. But if that's true, it means Ukraine has a real fighting chance to put them on their knees. In any case, this seems like a major loss for Russia.
> it means Ukraine has a real fighting chance to put them on their knees. Yes, and this point has been obvious to many for the last two years. The problem has been the west drip feeding aid into the largest war since WW2. We actually have to define the objective as reclaiming all Ukranian territory (at least to the pre-2022 borders) and supply them appropriately. It might be expensive in the short-term but we can aff…