Advanced Search
Russian Propaganda machine Edited
Russian Propaganda machine Edited
Apr 6, 2022 at 6:13pm
nan said: Did you watch Ukraine on Fire? Yesterday they had a live presentation including an interview with the director. You know I didn't and am not going to watch that.I generally feel that people posting should be able to make their own arguments. Not that those arguments have to be original -- really, aren't we all in the end just adding a layer on what we've received from others? -- but should be able to make the argument. If something I saw, read, or heard struck me as convincing, it's a good test of how well I absorbed it if I can restate the case in my own words. If I can't, then maybe I need to go back and re-read/listen/watch.
nan said: Did you watch Ukraine on Fire? Yesterday they had a live presentation including an interview with the director. You know I didn't and am not going to watch that.I generally feel that people posting should be able to make their own arguments. Not that those arguments have to be original -- really, aren't we all in the end just adding a layer on what we've received from others? -- but should be able to make the argument. If something I saw, read, or heard struck me as convincing, it's a good test of how well I absorbed it if I can restate the case in my own words. If I can't, then maybe I need to go back and re-read/listen/watch.
Russian Propaganda machine Edited
Apr 6, 2022 at 6:04pm
PVW said: Let's think this through a bit more. Your contention is that Ukraine's current government is just a puppet of the US, installed via a coup that was very successful. And with regards to the Russian invasion, while you would like to see the war end, you do seem to think Russia's goals are legitimate.The reason I have a hard time seeing your point of view as reasonable is that, on the one hand, a country a continent and an ocean away has supposedly managed to overthrow a government, install another, and effectively control that country over nearly a decade while a large state bordering that same country has to resort to a very large, and so far unsuccessful, military invasion.I don't plan too many coups or invasions either, but there is no universe in which sending 200,000 strong army to occupy another country takes less effort than having a small handful of people overthrow a government and run it for you. So Russia is, clearly, putting in several orders of magnitude more effort into Ukraine than the US, with worse results. Which leads to a few possible conclusions:- The US is an amazingly competent, super powerful, almost magical power while Russia is stunningly incompetent. Unlikely -- I mean, we couldn't even manage Afghanistan despite decades and billions of dollars...- The US coup succeeded and the Russian invasion has been failing because there's actually a lot of Ukrainians who want what the US-imposed government is pursuing and a lot of Ukrainians who don't want whatever Russia is seeking. More plausible, but while US toppling governments is bad, it does rather blunt the moral outrage we should feel if the result was something people in that country actually want- There wasn't a US coup. Ukrainians in 2014 overthrew a government that had ceased to respond to what Ukrainians actually wanted. I think this is the most plausible, especially as it acknowledges actual Ukrainians, which the coup theory erases. No scenario I can think of, though, supports any justification for Russian actions. I mean, even if we presume that the US was the driving force behind 2014, we're still faced with the fact that the reaction of Ukrainians to that was to accept that, whereas the reaction of Ukrainians to Russian actions has been to fight like hell. I don't understand how a person can allege that there were "100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan" but then look at the Russian flattening of Mariupol and come away saying that, actually Russia is in the right here.I would still disagree with you, but at least see it as a sensible POV, if you were claiming that 2014 was a US coup and also strongly denouncing the Russian invasion and saying Putin needs to stop his war. It's when you say claim that 2014 was a coup but then post deflections, defenses, and justifications of Russian actions that you completely lose me. There's just no through line there beyond opposition to the US. Did you watch Ukraine on Fire? Yesterday they had a live presentation including an interview with the director.
PVW said: Let's think this through a bit more. Your contention is that Ukraine's current government is just a puppet of the US, installed via a coup that was very successful. And with regards to the Russian invasion, while you would like to see the war end, you do seem to think Russia's goals are legitimate.The reason I have a hard time seeing your point of view as reasonable is that, on the one hand, a country a continent and an ocean away has supposedly managed to overthrow a government, install another, and effectively control that country over nearly a decade while a large state bordering that same country has to resort to a very large, and so far unsuccessful, military invasion.I don't plan too many coups or invasions either, but there is no universe in which sending 200,000 strong army to occupy another country takes less effort than having a small handful of people overthrow a government and run it for you. So Russia is, clearly, putting in several orders of magnitude more effort into Ukraine than the US, with worse results. Which leads to a few possible conclusions:- The US is an amazingly competent, super powerful, almost magical power while Russia is stunningly incompetent. Unlikely -- I mean, we couldn't even manage Afghanistan despite decades and billions of dollars...- The US coup succeeded and the Russian invasion has been failing because there's actually a lot of Ukrainians who want what the US-imposed government is pursuing and a lot of Ukrainians who don't want whatever Russia is seeking. More plausible, but while US toppling governments is bad, it does rather blunt the moral outrage we should feel if the result was something people in that country actually want- There wasn't a US coup. Ukrainians in 2014 overthrew a government that had ceased to respond to what Ukrainians actually wanted. I think this is the most plausible, especially as it acknowledges actual Ukrainians, which the coup theory erases. No scenario I can think of, though, supports any justification for Russian actions. I mean, even if we presume that the US was the driving force behind 2014, we're still faced with the fact that the reaction of Ukrainians to that was to accept that, whereas the reaction of Ukrainians to Russian actions has been to fight like hell. I don't understand how a person can allege that there were "100 innocent people murdered on the Maidan" but then look at the Russian flattening of Mariupol and come away saying that, actually Russia is in the right here.I would still disagree with you, but at least see it as a sensible POV, if you were claiming that 2014 was a US coup and also strongly denouncing the Russian invasion and saying Putin needs to stop his war. It's when you say claim that 2014 was a coup but then post deflections, defenses, and justifications of Russian actions that you completely lose me. There's just no through line there beyond opposition to the US. Did you watch Ukraine on Fire? Yesterday they had a live presentation including an interview with the director.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 14, 2022 at 11:16pm
nan said: jamie said:I did watch Ukraine on Fire and skimmed through the last one - and even cited an example (which you haven't replied to). I feel the whole thing is propaganda - so I'm asking you which particular piece would you want to people to see?It truly is pure Russian propaganda and it's remarkable that you're embracing it so much - weird. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that many other people are.And when Putin does have a public video clip in the movie - it's him walking through huge golden doors. Ugh! At least it's not western propaganda - right!! If you watched it than you can critique it. You hate Putin so much that anything about him that is not 100% negative reads as propaganda to you. That's because you are used to US media where everything said about him is 100% negative. It's all black and white. This makes it impossible for you to see the larger picture. You can't accept that your country had anything to do with this war, never mind funded Nazis groups to help them overthrow the government of Ukraine, making it a client state and waging proxy war with Russia. You can't see that the Ukrainians have been murdering their own people for eight years in an ethnic cleansing campaign using US weapons.But that's what happened. Those movies are not going to win Oscars but they have the facts on that straight. You tell us to watch a movie - I watch it. I say it's propaganda and you say I hate Putin (with what he's doing now - i do sorta hate him)I asked to name a segment that you liked and may want to discuss further. And you don't seem to want to talk about the movie now. I have no time to critique every single scene, but if there's one you would like me to critique - let me know. Otherwise - what's the sense of telling us to watch something?
nan said: jamie said:I did watch Ukraine on Fire and skimmed through the last one - and even cited an example (which you haven't replied to). I feel the whole thing is propaganda - so I'm asking you which particular piece would you want to people to see?It truly is pure Russian propaganda and it's remarkable that you're embracing it so much - weird. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that many other people are.And when Putin does have a public video clip in the movie - it's him walking through huge golden doors. Ugh! At least it's not western propaganda - right!! If you watched it than you can critique it. You hate Putin so much that anything about him that is not 100% negative reads as propaganda to you. That's because you are used to US media where everything said about him is 100% negative. It's all black and white. This makes it impossible for you to see the larger picture. You can't accept that your country had anything to do with this war, never mind funded Nazis groups to help them overthrow the government of Ukraine, making it a client state and waging proxy war with Russia. You can't see that the Ukrainians have been murdering their own people for eight years in an ethnic cleansing campaign using US weapons.But that's what happened. Those movies are not going to win Oscars but they have the facts on that straight. You tell us to watch a movie - I watch it. I say it's propaganda and you say I hate Putin (with what he's doing now - i do sorta hate him)I asked to name a segment that you liked and may want to discuss further. And you don't seem to want to talk about the movie now. I have no time to critique every single scene, but if there's one you would like me to critique - let me know. Otherwise - what's the sense of telling us to watch something?
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 14, 2022 at 4:33pm
jamie said:I did watch Ukraine on Fire and skimmed through the last one - and even cited an example (which you haven't replied to). I feel the whole thing is propaganda - so I'm asking you which particular piece would you want to people to see?It truly is pure Russian propaganda and it's remarkable that you're embracing it so much - weird. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that many other people are.And when Putin does have a public video clip in the movie - it's him walking through huge golden doors. Ugh! At least it's not western propaganda - right!! If you watched it than you can critique it. You hate Putin so much that anything about him that is not 100% negative reads as propaganda to you. That's because you are used to US media where everything said about him is 100% negative. It's all black and white. This makes it impossible for you to see the larger picture. You can't accept that your country had anything to do with this war, never mind funded Nazis groups to help them overthrow the government of Ukraine, making it a client state and waging proxy war with Russia. You can't see that the Ukrainians have been murdering their own people for eight years in an ethnic cleansing campaign using US weapons.But that's what happened. Those movies are not going to win Oscars but they have the facts on that straight.
jamie said:I did watch Ukraine on Fire and skimmed through the last one - and even cited an example (which you haven't replied to). I feel the whole thing is propaganda - so I'm asking you which particular piece would you want to people to see?It truly is pure Russian propaganda and it's remarkable that you're embracing it so much - weird. Fortunately, it doesn't appear that many other people are.And when Putin does have a public video clip in the movie - it's him walking through huge golden doors. Ugh! At least it's not western propaganda - right!! If you watched it than you can critique it. You hate Putin so much that anything about him that is not 100% negative reads as propaganda to you. That's because you are used to US media where everything said about him is 100% negative. It's all black and white. This makes it impossible for you to see the larger picture. You can't accept that your country had anything to do with this war, never mind funded Nazis groups to help them overthrow the government of Ukraine, making it a client state and waging proxy war with Russia. You can't see that the Ukrainians have been murdering their own people for eight years in an ethnic cleansing campaign using US weapons.But that's what happened. Those movies are not going to win Oscars but they have the facts on that straight.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 13, 2022 at 6:47pm
nan said: sbenois said:Nan, your lack of concern about the current situation in Ukraine has now resulted in you being designated a Warmonger by the Tribunal.BTW...I tried to defend you but no one wanted to hear about NJ Transit or our bridge issues. I seem to be the most concerned person on MOL about avoiding nuclear war so cut me some slack. Here's another movie to watch that just came out. It is by the same people as Ukraine on Fire without Oliver Stone. It has more of the "balance" that Jamie wants, but in doing so it also lets Republicans speak so he will probably think that's going to far. Anyway, it's intense and it follows Ukraine from the beginning of its independence to the present day with lots of details and interviews with people involved. Very intense. Did I mention it's intense? It's intense. Ukraine: The Everlasting Present Documentary Dedicated to the 30th Anniversery of Ukraine's Independence. Sorry. Not watching movies certified by a warmonger.
nan said: sbenois said:Nan, your lack of concern about the current situation in Ukraine has now resulted in you being designated a Warmonger by the Tribunal.BTW...I tried to defend you but no one wanted to hear about NJ Transit or our bridge issues. I seem to be the most concerned person on MOL about avoiding nuclear war so cut me some slack. Here's another movie to watch that just came out. It is by the same people as Ukraine on Fire without Oliver Stone. It has more of the "balance" that Jamie wants, but in doing so it also lets Republicans speak so he will probably think that's going to far. Anyway, it's intense and it follows Ukraine from the beginning of its independence to the present day with lots of details and interviews with people involved. Very intense. Did I mention it's intense? It's intense. Ukraine: The Everlasting Present Documentary Dedicated to the 30th Anniversery of Ukraine's Independence. Sorry. Not watching movies certified by a warmonger.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 13, 2022 at 6:35pm
sbenois said:Nan, your lack of concern about the current situation in Ukraine has now resulted in you being designated a Warmonger by the Tribunal.BTW...I tried to defend you but no one wanted to hear about NJ Transit or our bridge issues. I seem to be the most concerned person on MOL about avoiding nuclear war so cut me some slack. Here's another movie to watch that just came out. It is by the same people as Ukraine on Fire without Oliver Stone. It has more of the "balance" that Jamie wants, but in doing so it also lets Republicans speak so he will probably think that's going to far. Anyway, it's intense and it follows Ukraine from the beginning of its independence to the present day with lots of details and interviews with people involved. Very intense. Did I mention it's intense? It's intense. Ukraine: The Everlasting Present Documentary Dedicated to the 30th Anniversery of Ukraine's Independence.
sbenois said:Nan, your lack of concern about the current situation in Ukraine has now resulted in you being designated a Warmonger by the Tribunal.BTW...I tried to defend you but no one wanted to hear about NJ Transit or our bridge issues. I seem to be the most concerned person on MOL about avoiding nuclear war so cut me some slack. Here's another movie to watch that just came out. It is by the same people as Ukraine on Fire without Oliver Stone. It has more of the "balance" that Jamie wants, but in doing so it also lets Republicans speak so he will probably think that's going to far. Anyway, it's intense and it follows Ukraine from the beginning of its independence to the present day with lots of details and interviews with people involved. Very intense. Did I mention it's intense? It's intense. Ukraine: The Everlasting Present Documentary Dedicated to the 30th Anniversery of Ukraine's Independence.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 13, 2022 at 11:15am
nan said: jamie said: Decent review:First thing to note before watching this "documentary" is that the filmmaker is from Eastern Ukraine, which explains his pro-Russian ideology. The interviews conducted in the film are of Putin and Yanukovich; no other leaders or Presidents have been interviewed or asked any questions on their opinion or thoughts. As you watch the film, you will notice that every account of events is very one-sided and fails to portray all the facts, conveniently leaving out parts of the story that are crucial to the understanding of the unfolding of Ukraine's history. The constant naming of Ukrainians as Nazis along with side-by-side images of Ukrainian political leaders with Nazi leaders and their demonstrations is a propaganda tool that is used throughout the film to paint nationalistic Ukrainians as terrorists and anti-Semitists. This film is meant to recount Ukraine's history but leaves out every positive fact and victory as well as "forgetting" about the injustices committed against the Ukrainian people such as Holodomor, a mass starvation effort carried out by Stalin and the USSR during which millions of Ukrainians died. Overall, this is an offensive and extremely biased account of Ukraine and should only be watched to get a better understanding of the tools Russia and pro-Russians use in their propaganda.---------------I have found that those who love this "doc" are those who have a anti-MSM mantra online. Jamie - The mainstream media give ONE view of the Ukraine situation 24/7. You can turn on CNN/MSNBC/NPR/PPS/FOX/ and many others and get ONE view of Ukraine. You never complain about their lack of contrasting views. There is even a movie on Netflix about Ukraine with a similar sounding name to Ukraine on Fire (probably on purpose) which only gives the CIA/propaganda view and I remember you were fine with that one. So everyone already knows one side of the story. Oliver Stone makes a movie about another side to the story and all you want is for the other very loud and easily found views to take over half of that too. Because you don't want any other side told. You just want to believe the simplistic view that Putin is a mad dictator who woke up one day and did not get enough coffee and decided to invade his neighbor and now has plans to invade all the neighbors until he is king of the world. That's what has been told to you over and over for years, without any other side, and you can't see past that. since you (presumably) don't watch any of the mainstream media, how are you so sure of what they present?because from this end, what you are presenting is a silly caricature. the fact that you believe it so strongly is a questionable choice on your part.
nan said: jamie said: Decent review:First thing to note before watching this "documentary" is that the filmmaker is from Eastern Ukraine, which explains his pro-Russian ideology. The interviews conducted in the film are of Putin and Yanukovich; no other leaders or Presidents have been interviewed or asked any questions on their opinion or thoughts. As you watch the film, you will notice that every account of events is very one-sided and fails to portray all the facts, conveniently leaving out parts of the story that are crucial to the understanding of the unfolding of Ukraine's history. The constant naming of Ukrainians as Nazis along with side-by-side images of Ukrainian political leaders with Nazi leaders and their demonstrations is a propaganda tool that is used throughout the film to paint nationalistic Ukrainians as terrorists and anti-Semitists. This film is meant to recount Ukraine's history but leaves out every positive fact and victory as well as "forgetting" about the injustices committed against the Ukrainian people such as Holodomor, a mass starvation effort carried out by Stalin and the USSR during which millions of Ukrainians died. Overall, this is an offensive and extremely biased account of Ukraine and should only be watched to get a better understanding of the tools Russia and pro-Russians use in their propaganda.---------------I have found that those who love this "doc" are those who have a anti-MSM mantra online. Jamie - The mainstream media give ONE view of the Ukraine situation 24/7. You can turn on CNN/MSNBC/NPR/PPS/FOX/ and many others and get ONE view of Ukraine. You never complain about their lack of contrasting views. There is even a movie on Netflix about Ukraine with a similar sounding name to Ukraine on Fire (probably on purpose) which only gives the CIA/propaganda view and I remember you were fine with that one. So everyone already knows one side of the story. Oliver Stone makes a movie about another side to the story and all you want is for the other very loud and easily found views to take over half of that too. Because you don't want any other side told. You just want to believe the simplistic view that Putin is a mad dictator who woke up one day and did not get enough coffee and decided to invade his neighbor and now has plans to invade all the neighbors until he is king of the world. That's what has been told to you over and over for years, without any other side, and you can't see past that. since you (presumably) don't watch any of the mainstream media, how are you so sure of what they present?because from this end, what you are presenting is a silly caricature. the fact that you believe it so strongly is a questionable choice on your part.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 13, 2022 at 8:16am
jamie said: Decent review:First thing to note before watching this "documentary" is that the filmmaker is from Eastern Ukraine, which explains his pro-Russian ideology. The interviews conducted in the film are of Putin and Yanukovich; no other leaders or Presidents have been interviewed or asked any questions on their opinion or thoughts. As you watch the film, you will notice that every account of events is very one-sided and fails to portray all the facts, conveniently leaving out parts of the story that are crucial to the understanding of the unfolding of Ukraine's history. The constant naming of Ukrainians as Nazis along with side-by-side images of Ukrainian political leaders with Nazi leaders and their demonstrations is a propaganda tool that is used throughout the film to paint nationalistic Ukrainians as terrorists and anti-Semitists. This film is meant to recount Ukraine's history but leaves out every positive fact and victory as well as "forgetting" about the injustices committed against the Ukrainian people such as Holodomor, a mass starvation effort carried out by Stalin and the USSR during which millions of Ukrainians died. Overall, this is an offensive and extremely biased account of Ukraine and should only be watched to get a better understanding of the tools Russia and pro-Russians use in their propaganda.---------------I have found that those who love this "doc" are those who have a anti-MSM mantra online. Jamie - The mainstream media give ONE view of the Ukraine situation 24/7. You can turn on CNN/MSNBC/NPR/PPS/FOX/ and many others and get ONE view of Ukraine. You never complain about their lack of contrasting views. There is even a movie on Netflix about Ukraine with a similar sounding name to Ukraine on Fire (probably on purpose) which only gives the CIA/propaganda view and I remember you were fine with that one. So everyone already knows one side of the story. Oliver Stone makes a movie about another side to the story and all you want is for the other very loud and easily found views to take over half of that too. Because you don't want any other side told. You just want to believe the simplistic view that Putin is a mad dictator who woke up one day and did not get enough coffee and decided to invade his neighbor and now has plans to invade all the neighbors until he is king of the world. That's what has been told to you over and over for years, without any other side, and you can't see past that.
jamie said: Decent review:First thing to note before watching this "documentary" is that the filmmaker is from Eastern Ukraine, which explains his pro-Russian ideology. The interviews conducted in the film are of Putin and Yanukovich; no other leaders or Presidents have been interviewed or asked any questions on their opinion or thoughts. As you watch the film, you will notice that every account of events is very one-sided and fails to portray all the facts, conveniently leaving out parts of the story that are crucial to the understanding of the unfolding of Ukraine's history. The constant naming of Ukrainians as Nazis along with side-by-side images of Ukrainian political leaders with Nazi leaders and their demonstrations is a propaganda tool that is used throughout the film to paint nationalistic Ukrainians as terrorists and anti-Semitists. This film is meant to recount Ukraine's history but leaves out every positive fact and victory as well as "forgetting" about the injustices committed against the Ukrainian people such as Holodomor, a mass starvation effort carried out by Stalin and the USSR during which millions of Ukrainians died. Overall, this is an offensive and extremely biased account of Ukraine and should only be watched to get a better understanding of the tools Russia and pro-Russians use in their propaganda.---------------I have found that those who love this "doc" are those who have a anti-MSM mantra online. Jamie - The mainstream media give ONE view of the Ukraine situation 24/7. You can turn on CNN/MSNBC/NPR/PPS/FOX/ and many others and get ONE view of Ukraine. You never complain about their lack of contrasting views. There is even a movie on Netflix about Ukraine with a similar sounding name to Ukraine on Fire (probably on purpose) which only gives the CIA/propaganda view and I remember you were fine with that one. So everyone already knows one side of the story. Oliver Stone makes a movie about another side to the story and all you want is for the other very loud and easily found views to take over half of that too. Because you don't want any other side told. You just want to believe the simplistic view that Putin is a mad dictator who woke up one day and did not get enough coffee and decided to invade his neighbor and now has plans to invade all the neighbors until he is king of the world. That's what has been told to you over and over for years, without any other side, and you can't see past that.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 12, 2022 at 10:13pm
nan said: I look forward to reading this review as I know it will be very entertaining unlike that dreary piece of crap you cited for the last one from the dull Russian exile person. Chelsea Clinton used to sit on the board at the Daily Beast and may still. It's a super duper pro-Clinton site and the movie goes into some serious anti-Hillary material which we discussed on MOL back in the day. So, I know they HATE Putin and LOVE Hillary and the Democrats so it's going to to be brutal. But probably fun. One thing in the movie I found surprising was Putin talking about the 2016 election and commenting specifically about the appeal of Donald Trump to people who had suffered economic decline. He was quite insightful about that and I wondered where he got his information on our elections from. There is a bunch of Russiagate stuff in the movie that can be separated out from the main thesis which is the state of Ukraine after 2014 until the election of Zelensky. Stone points out that Zelsensky ran on a peace platform promising peace in the Donbas, but then never delivered. This movie is not as good as Ukraine on Fire, but it has lots of interesting perspectives and conclusions that go beyond what you learn in the other one. So, I recommend watching it no matter what the Daily Beast says. I'm shocked how warped the Donbas view is - by you and Stone. It's like Russia is portrayed as an innocent bystander in all of this - amazing.
nan said: I look forward to reading this review as I know it will be very entertaining unlike that dreary piece of crap you cited for the last one from the dull Russian exile person. Chelsea Clinton used to sit on the board at the Daily Beast and may still. It's a super duper pro-Clinton site and the movie goes into some serious anti-Hillary material which we discussed on MOL back in the day. So, I know they HATE Putin and LOVE Hillary and the Democrats so it's going to to be brutal. But probably fun. One thing in the movie I found surprising was Putin talking about the 2016 election and commenting specifically about the appeal of Donald Trump to people who had suffered economic decline. He was quite insightful about that and I wondered where he got his information on our elections from. There is a bunch of Russiagate stuff in the movie that can be separated out from the main thesis which is the state of Ukraine after 2014 until the election of Zelensky. Stone points out that Zelsensky ran on a peace platform promising peace in the Donbas, but then never delivered. This movie is not as good as Ukraine on Fire, but it has lots of interesting perspectives and conclusions that go beyond what you learn in the other one. So, I recommend watching it no matter what the Daily Beast says. I'm shocked how warped the Donbas view is - by you and Stone. It's like Russia is portrayed as an innocent bystander in all of this - amazing.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 12, 2022 at 10:06pm
jamie said: ugh shocker https://www.thedailybeast.com/revealing-ukraine-oliver-stones-latest-piece-of-pro-putin-propaganda-may-be-his-most-shameless-move-yet I look forward to reading this review as I know it will be very entertaining unlike that dreary piece of crap you cited for the last one from the dull Russian exile person. Chelsea Clinton used to sit on the board at the Daily Beast and may still. It's a super duper pro-Clinton site and the movie goes into some serious anti-Hillary material which we discussed on MOL back in the day. So, I know they HATE Putin and LOVE Hillary and the Democrats so it's going to to be brutal. But probably fun. One thing in the movie I found surprising was Putin talking about the 2016 election and commenting specifically about the appeal of Donald Trump to people who had suffered economic decline. He was quite insightful about that and I wondered where he got his information on our elections from. There is a bunch of Russiagate stuff in the movie that can be separated out from the main thesis which is the state of Ukraine after 2014 until the election of Zelensky. Stone points out that Zelsensky ran on a peace platform promising peace in the Donbas, but then never delivered. This movie is not as good as Ukraine on Fire, but it has lots of interesting perspectives and conclusions that go beyond what you learn in the other one. So, I recommend watching it no matter what the Daily Beast says.
jamie said: ugh shocker https://www.thedailybeast.com/revealing-ukraine-oliver-stones-latest-piece-of-pro-putin-propaganda-may-be-his-most-shameless-move-yet I look forward to reading this review as I know it will be very entertaining unlike that dreary piece of crap you cited for the last one from the dull Russian exile person. Chelsea Clinton used to sit on the board at the Daily Beast and may still. It's a super duper pro-Clinton site and the movie goes into some serious anti-Hillary material which we discussed on MOL back in the day. So, I know they HATE Putin and LOVE Hillary and the Democrats so it's going to to be brutal. But probably fun. One thing in the movie I found surprising was Putin talking about the 2016 election and commenting specifically about the appeal of Donald Trump to people who had suffered economic decline. He was quite insightful about that and I wondered where he got his information on our elections from. There is a bunch of Russiagate stuff in the movie that can be separated out from the main thesis which is the state of Ukraine after 2014 until the election of Zelensky. Stone points out that Zelsensky ran on a peace platform promising peace in the Donbas, but then never delivered. This movie is not as good as Ukraine on Fire, but it has lots of interesting perspectives and conclusions that go beyond what you learn in the other one. So, I recommend watching it no matter what the Daily Beast says.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 12, 2022 at 8:42pm
jamie said:nan - why don't you listen to what Putin is actually saying instead of your propaganda?Can you post other sites where people are responding to your posts? I'm curious to see where you're chatting with like minded people. Or are we the only lucky ones? I have listened to Putin. In fact I watched most of a Putin press conference which was very strange but I lost the link so I can't find it to finish. From what I have heard, his demands are reasonable. They are also the same demands he has been making for years. This conflict has been tinder waiting for a match for years and years. Lots of stuff has been going on in Ukraine, including Russiagate stuff (which made the Democrats look bad), but no one here was the least bit interested. There was also the stuff with Biden's son which was suppressed and blamed on Russia. I know I have been pushing you all to watch Ukraine on Fire, which you should, but Oliver Stone made a follow up movie which is also interesting. It covers some of the same ground of the previous movie, but focuses on the Ukraine post-2014. Since the coup they have had one pro-Western leader after another and the economy has plummeted, the education system declined and anyone with a brain has figured out a way to leave. I worked with someone from Ukraine and I tried to talk to her about it and all she would say was, "It's very sad." As here, they also blame a lot of stuff on Russia. Anyway, I recommend watching this movie also, because it shows how Wall Street and the US used Ukraine and did not work with it's best interests at heart. Anyway, watch if you are interested:Revealing Ukraine https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10498588/Note: The trailer on Amazon Prime seems to be from Ukraine on Fire, not Revealing Ukraine.
jamie said:nan - why don't you listen to what Putin is actually saying instead of your propaganda?Can you post other sites where people are responding to your posts? I'm curious to see where you're chatting with like minded people. Or are we the only lucky ones? I have listened to Putin. In fact I watched most of a Putin press conference which was very strange but I lost the link so I can't find it to finish. From what I have heard, his demands are reasonable. They are also the same demands he has been making for years. This conflict has been tinder waiting for a match for years and years. Lots of stuff has been going on in Ukraine, including Russiagate stuff (which made the Democrats look bad), but no one here was the least bit interested. There was also the stuff with Biden's son which was suppressed and blamed on Russia. I know I have been pushing you all to watch Ukraine on Fire, which you should, but Oliver Stone made a follow up movie which is also interesting. It covers some of the same ground of the previous movie, but focuses on the Ukraine post-2014. Since the coup they have had one pro-Western leader after another and the economy has plummeted, the education system declined and anyone with a brain has figured out a way to leave. I worked with someone from Ukraine and I tried to talk to her about it and all she would say was, "It's very sad." As here, they also blame a lot of stuff on Russia. Anyway, I recommend watching this movie also, because it shows how Wall Street and the US used Ukraine and did not work with it's best interests at heart. Anyway, watch if you are interested:Revealing Ukraine https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10498588/Note: The trailer on Amazon Prime seems to be from Ukraine on Fire, not Revealing Ukraine.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 12, 2022 at 5:21pm
nan said: drummerboy said: that recording, as has been pointed out numerous times (terp was the last to post it just a few days ago) proves nothing at all.a mid-level government functionary expressing a preference for a candidate is not proof of a coup. And I'm embarrassed that I have to say that among adults.the fact that you find this clip so damning is further indication that your claim of a coup is baseless. your level of what constitutes evidence is extremely, extremely low, as has been established many times on MOL. They are not discussing a preference. They are arranging a coup with sign offs obtained. It's very clear. That you can't see this is might be deliberate blindness, embarrassing denial, or some other defect. There is lots of other evidence. Watch the movie Ukraine on Fire and see them hanging out with protesters and all the other clues. The Nuland conversation was 24 days before "Yatz" was installed as discussed on February 26th, 2014. The World Socialists used the term "gangsterism" to describe Nuland and Co. and describe how this fulfills the neocon desire for direct confrontation with Russia. Leaked phone call on Ukraine lays bare Washington’s gangsterismhttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/10/pers-f10.htmlhighlight:"The real political significance of the phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt is left largely in the shade. This is no accident, as the call provides a devastating exposure of the criminal and imperialist character of US policy in Ukraine and debunks the phony “democratic” pretensions of the Obama administration. In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama declared: “In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully, and to have a say in their country’s future.” What the tape makes clear, however, is that Washington is employing methods of international gangsterism, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years ago. The precise goal of US efforts is to shift political power into the hands of a collection of Western-aligned Ukrainian oligarchs who enriched themselves off of the private appropriation—theft—of state property carried out as part of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In doing so, it aims to turn Ukraine into a US imperialist beachhead on the very border of Russia, whose territory it also wants to divide and subjugate to neocolonial status as part of its drive to assert American hegemony throughout the strategic landmass of Eurasia. The Nuland-Pyatt conversation is concerned with the nuts and bolts of this venture. They involve the whipping up of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism and aid to far-right political forces that serve as a battering ram against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukraine president’s turn toward a deal with Russia rather than integration into the European Union was the spark for the current campaign for regime-change. Nuland makes clear that behind the scenes, Washington is dictating which leaders of the opposition—referred to as “the big three”—should enter the government to swing it behind Washington and what role the others will play. Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party, who served as minister of economy and minister of foreign affairs in the ill-fated government brought to power by the so-called Orange Revolution orchestrated by Washington in 2004, is identified by the assistant secretary of state as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Nuland proposes that two other prominent right-wing leaders of the anti-Yanukovych protests—ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko, the chief of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms, or Udar (an acronym that means “punch”), and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the neo-fascist Svoboda party—remain “on the outside,” continuing to whip up right-wing mobs. Yatsenyuk, she adds, “needs to be talking to them four times a week.” She and the ambassador refer to two of these figures as “Yats” and “Klitsch,” the kind of names normally reserved for poodles. During her latest visit to Kiev, which coincided with the leaking of the phone call, Nuland met and posed publicly with the three opposition leaders mentioned in the taped conversation—“Yats,” “Klitsch” and the man who is playing the decisive role in the organization of the violent protests in Maidan Square, Svoboda leader Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok was reportedly banned last year from entering the US because of rabidly anti-Semitic speeches praising his followers for striking fear in “the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine,” and hailing World War II-era Ukrainian fascists for fighting Russians, Germans “kikes and other scum.” This, however, did not give Nuland pause. During her previous visit to Ukraine in December 2013, Nuland, the grand-daughter of Jewish immigrants who fled to America to escape pogroms in Tsarist Russia, provided a uniquely repellent spectacle, handing out cookies in Maidan square to Svoboda thugs who venerate the mass murderers of Hitler’s SS." ridiculous.Where in that piece do they actually provide evidence from the call that any of their claims are true?Nowhere is where.As I said, your evidentiary standards are practically non-existent. All it takes is for someone to cater to your preconceived notions.
nan said: drummerboy said: that recording, as has been pointed out numerous times (terp was the last to post it just a few days ago) proves nothing at all.a mid-level government functionary expressing a preference for a candidate is not proof of a coup. And I'm embarrassed that I have to say that among adults.the fact that you find this clip so damning is further indication that your claim of a coup is baseless. your level of what constitutes evidence is extremely, extremely low, as has been established many times on MOL. They are not discussing a preference. They are arranging a coup with sign offs obtained. It's very clear. That you can't see this is might be deliberate blindness, embarrassing denial, or some other defect. There is lots of other evidence. Watch the movie Ukraine on Fire and see them hanging out with protesters and all the other clues. The Nuland conversation was 24 days before "Yatz" was installed as discussed on February 26th, 2014. The World Socialists used the term "gangsterism" to describe Nuland and Co. and describe how this fulfills the neocon desire for direct confrontation with Russia. Leaked phone call on Ukraine lays bare Washington’s gangsterismhttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/10/pers-f10.htmlhighlight:"The real political significance of the phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt is left largely in the shade. This is no accident, as the call provides a devastating exposure of the criminal and imperialist character of US policy in Ukraine and debunks the phony “democratic” pretensions of the Obama administration. In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama declared: “In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully, and to have a say in their country’s future.” What the tape makes clear, however, is that Washington is employing methods of international gangsterism, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years ago. The precise goal of US efforts is to shift political power into the hands of a collection of Western-aligned Ukrainian oligarchs who enriched themselves off of the private appropriation—theft—of state property carried out as part of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In doing so, it aims to turn Ukraine into a US imperialist beachhead on the very border of Russia, whose territory it also wants to divide and subjugate to neocolonial status as part of its drive to assert American hegemony throughout the strategic landmass of Eurasia. The Nuland-Pyatt conversation is concerned with the nuts and bolts of this venture. They involve the whipping up of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism and aid to far-right political forces that serve as a battering ram against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukraine president’s turn toward a deal with Russia rather than integration into the European Union was the spark for the current campaign for regime-change. Nuland makes clear that behind the scenes, Washington is dictating which leaders of the opposition—referred to as “the big three”—should enter the government to swing it behind Washington and what role the others will play. Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party, who served as minister of economy and minister of foreign affairs in the ill-fated government brought to power by the so-called Orange Revolution orchestrated by Washington in 2004, is identified by the assistant secretary of state as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Nuland proposes that two other prominent right-wing leaders of the anti-Yanukovych protests—ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko, the chief of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms, or Udar (an acronym that means “punch”), and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the neo-fascist Svoboda party—remain “on the outside,” continuing to whip up right-wing mobs. Yatsenyuk, she adds, “needs to be talking to them four times a week.” She and the ambassador refer to two of these figures as “Yats” and “Klitsch,” the kind of names normally reserved for poodles. During her latest visit to Kiev, which coincided with the leaking of the phone call, Nuland met and posed publicly with the three opposition leaders mentioned in the taped conversation—“Yats,” “Klitsch” and the man who is playing the decisive role in the organization of the violent protests in Maidan Square, Svoboda leader Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok was reportedly banned last year from entering the US because of rabidly anti-Semitic speeches praising his followers for striking fear in “the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine,” and hailing World War II-era Ukrainian fascists for fighting Russians, Germans “kikes and other scum.” This, however, did not give Nuland pause. During her previous visit to Ukraine in December 2013, Nuland, the grand-daughter of Jewish immigrants who fled to America to escape pogroms in Tsarist Russia, provided a uniquely repellent spectacle, handing out cookies in Maidan square to Svoboda thugs who venerate the mass murderers of Hitler’s SS." ridiculous.Where in that piece do they actually provide evidence from the call that any of their claims are true?Nowhere is where.As I said, your evidentiary standards are practically non-existent. All it takes is for someone to cater to your preconceived notions.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 12, 2022 at 5:02pm
drummerboy said: that recording, as has been pointed out numerous times (terp was the last to post it just a few days ago) proves nothing at all.a mid-level government functionary expressing a preference for a candidate is not proof of a coup. And I'm embarrassed that I have to say that among adults.the fact that you find this clip so damning is further indication that your claim of a coup is baseless. your level of what constitutes evidence is extremely, extremely low, as has been established many times on MOL. They are not discussing a preference. They are arranging a coup with sign offs obtained. It's very clear. That you can't see this is might be deliberate blindness, embarrassing denial, or some other defect. There is lots of other evidence. Watch the movie Ukraine on Fire and see them hanging out with protesters and all the other clues. The Nuland conversation was 24 days before "Yatz" was installed as discussed on February 26th, 2014. The World Socialists used the term "gangsterism" to describe Nuland and Co. and describe how this fulfills the neocon desire for direct confrontation with Russia. Leaked phone call on Ukraine lays bare Washington’s gangsterismhttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/10/pers-f10.htmlhighlight:"The real political significance of the phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt is left largely in the shade. This is no accident, as the call provides a devastating exposure of the criminal and imperialist character of US policy in Ukraine and debunks the phony “democratic” pretensions of the Obama administration. In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama declared: “In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully, and to have a say in their country’s future.” What the tape makes clear, however, is that Washington is employing methods of international gangsterism, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years ago. The precise goal of US efforts is to shift political power into the hands of a collection of Western-aligned Ukrainian oligarchs who enriched themselves off of the private appropriation—theft—of state property carried out as part of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In doing so, it aims to turn Ukraine into a US imperialist beachhead on the very border of Russia, whose territory it also wants to divide and subjugate to neocolonial status as part of its drive to assert American hegemony throughout the strategic landmass of Eurasia. The Nuland-Pyatt conversation is concerned with the nuts and bolts of this venture. They involve the whipping up of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism and aid to far-right political forces that serve as a battering ram against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukraine president’s turn toward a deal with Russia rather than integration into the European Union was the spark for the current campaign for regime-change. Nuland makes clear that behind the scenes, Washington is dictating which leaders of the opposition—referred to as “the big three”—should enter the government to swing it behind Washington and what role the others will play. Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party, who served as minister of economy and minister of foreign affairs in the ill-fated government brought to power by the so-called Orange Revolution orchestrated by Washington in 2004, is identified by the assistant secretary of state as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Nuland proposes that two other prominent right-wing leaders of the anti-Yanukovych protests—ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko, the chief of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms, or Udar (an acronym that means “punch”), and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the neo-fascist Svoboda party—remain “on the outside,” continuing to whip up right-wing mobs. Yatsenyuk, she adds, “needs to be talking to them four times a week.” She and the ambassador refer to two of these figures as “Yats” and “Klitsch,” the kind of names normally reserved for poodles. During her latest visit to Kiev, which coincided with the leaking of the phone call, Nuland met and posed publicly with the three opposition leaders mentioned in the taped conversation—“Yats,” “Klitsch” and the man who is playing the decisive role in the organization of the violent protests in Maidan Square, Svoboda leader Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok was reportedly banned last year from entering the US because of rabidly anti-Semitic speeches praising his followers for striking fear in “the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine,” and hailing World War II-era Ukrainian fascists for fighting Russians, Germans “kikes and other scum.” This, however, did not give Nuland pause. During her previous visit to Ukraine in December 2013, Nuland, the grand-daughter of Jewish immigrants who fled to America to escape pogroms in Tsarist Russia, provided a uniquely repellent spectacle, handing out cookies in Maidan square to Svoboda thugs who venerate the mass murderers of Hitler’s SS."
drummerboy said: that recording, as has been pointed out numerous times (terp was the last to post it just a few days ago) proves nothing at all.a mid-level government functionary expressing a preference for a candidate is not proof of a coup. And I'm embarrassed that I have to say that among adults.the fact that you find this clip so damning is further indication that your claim of a coup is baseless. your level of what constitutes evidence is extremely, extremely low, as has been established many times on MOL. They are not discussing a preference. They are arranging a coup with sign offs obtained. It's very clear. That you can't see this is might be deliberate blindness, embarrassing denial, or some other defect. There is lots of other evidence. Watch the movie Ukraine on Fire and see them hanging out with protesters and all the other clues. The Nuland conversation was 24 days before "Yatz" was installed as discussed on February 26th, 2014. The World Socialists used the term "gangsterism" to describe Nuland and Co. and describe how this fulfills the neocon desire for direct confrontation with Russia. Leaked phone call on Ukraine lays bare Washington’s gangsterismhttps://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/02/10/pers-f10.htmlhighlight:"The real political significance of the phone conversation between Nuland and Pyatt is left largely in the shade. This is no accident, as the call provides a devastating exposure of the criminal and imperialist character of US policy in Ukraine and debunks the phony “democratic” pretensions of the Obama administration. In his State of the Union speech last month, Obama declared: “In Ukraine, we stand for the principle that all people have the right to express themselves freely and peacefully, and to have a say in their country’s future.” What the tape makes clear, however, is that Washington is employing methods of international gangsterism, including violence, to effect a political coup aimed at installing a regime that is fully subordinate to US geo-strategic interests. This operation has no more to do with democracy than the US-orchestrated coups in countries like Chile and Argentina some 40 years ago. The precise goal of US efforts is to shift political power into the hands of a collection of Western-aligned Ukrainian oligarchs who enriched themselves off of the private appropriation—theft—of state property carried out as part of the Stalinist bureaucracy’s dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991. In doing so, it aims to turn Ukraine into a US imperialist beachhead on the very border of Russia, whose territory it also wants to divide and subjugate to neocolonial status as part of its drive to assert American hegemony throughout the strategic landmass of Eurasia. The Nuland-Pyatt conversation is concerned with the nuts and bolts of this venture. They involve the whipping up of anti-Russian Ukrainian nationalism and aid to far-right political forces that serve as a battering ram against the government of President Viktor Yanukovych. The Ukraine president’s turn toward a deal with Russia rather than integration into the European Union was the spark for the current campaign for regime-change. Nuland makes clear that behind the scenes, Washington is dictating which leaders of the opposition—referred to as “the big three”—should enter the government to swing it behind Washington and what role the others will play. Arseniy Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party, who served as minister of economy and minister of foreign affairs in the ill-fated government brought to power by the so-called Orange Revolution orchestrated by Washington in 2004, is identified by the assistant secretary of state as “the guy who’s got the economic experience, the governing experience.” Nuland proposes that two other prominent right-wing leaders of the anti-Yanukovych protests—ex-boxer Vitali Klitschko, the chief of the Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reforms, or Udar (an acronym that means “punch”), and Oleh Tyahnybok, leader of the neo-fascist Svoboda party—remain “on the outside,” continuing to whip up right-wing mobs. Yatsenyuk, she adds, “needs to be talking to them four times a week.” She and the ambassador refer to two of these figures as “Yats” and “Klitsch,” the kind of names normally reserved for poodles. During her latest visit to Kiev, which coincided with the leaking of the phone call, Nuland met and posed publicly with the three opposition leaders mentioned in the taped conversation—“Yats,” “Klitsch” and the man who is playing the decisive role in the organization of the violent protests in Maidan Square, Svoboda leader Tyahnybok. Tyahnybok was reportedly banned last year from entering the US because of rabidly anti-Semitic speeches praising his followers for striking fear in “the Moscow-Jewish mafia ruling Ukraine,” and hailing World War II-era Ukrainian fascists for fighting Russians, Germans “kikes and other scum.” This, however, did not give Nuland pause. During her previous visit to Ukraine in December 2013, Nuland, the grand-daughter of Jewish immigrants who fled to America to escape pogroms in Tsarist Russia, provided a uniquely repellent spectacle, handing out cookies in Maidan square to Svoboda thugs who venerate the mass murderers of Hitler’s SS."
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 5, 2022 at 12:12pm
nan said: nan said: jamie said:The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage. Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur? nan says:Again, speaking about a movie you have not seen. I have posted many articles about the far-right groups (Nazis). Why should I post more when you don't read them anyway? This is typical of you to demand that I provide information and then ignore it when I do.(can't get the green to turn off --been awhile since I've been here and I forget. I saw it - it's propaganda. Now you ask, what exactly didn't I agree with. I am not going down this rabbit hole. You already have bought every Vlad and Yanukovich (the guy who's currently on the sideline to resume his role as president of Ukraine) That said - they package it cleverly, cherry picking statements that suit their POV.I'm asking you - who is Nazi #1. It's very similar to T**** blaming antifa for everything. I'm sure I could make a similar movie to make you think antifia is threatening everything.
nan said: nan said: jamie said:The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage. Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur? nan says:Again, speaking about a movie you have not seen. I have posted many articles about the far-right groups (Nazis). Why should I post more when you don't read them anyway? This is typical of you to demand that I provide information and then ignore it when I do.(can't get the green to turn off --been awhile since I've been here and I forget. I saw it - it's propaganda. Now you ask, what exactly didn't I agree with. I am not going down this rabbit hole. You already have bought every Vlad and Yanukovich (the guy who's currently on the sideline to resume his role as president of Ukraine) That said - they package it cleverly, cherry picking statements that suit their POV.I'm asking you - who is Nazi #1. It's very similar to T**** blaming antifa for everything. I'm sure I could make a similar movie to make you think antifia is threatening everything.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 5, 2022 at 11:30am
The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage. Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur?
The "experts" in Ukraine on Fire" are providing the propaganda for the current invasion they're carrying out. It's absolutely bizarre that you're buying this absolute one sided garbage. Vlad wants to exterminate the Nazis, he isn't using the uprise in 2014 as the reason, he's using the end of WWII as the reason.If you want to help you side, you could explain to us - who are the key Nazis on the hit list - where are they - how many are in the government, etc. What are your experts saying on how a proper denazification will occur?
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 5, 2022 at 9:15am
Ridski posted: nan said:Ukraine on Fire is a documentary. Do you know what documentary is? What does it matter anyway since you refuse to watch the film. Plandemic is a documentary. Loose Change is a documentary. Patriot Purge is a documentary. Vaxxed is a documentary.----------------------------------So, according to you, there are bad, untruthful documentaries in the world so Ukraine on Fire must be a bad movie? Zero logic.Good thing I'm a patient special ed teacher. Let me break it down for you. It's called "Author's Purpose" when they teach it in elementary school.People make fiction/fantasy movies to entertain. They make documentaries to inform and persuade. People watch documentaries and they may be informed or persuaded or they may find fault with the material presented. Because one movie has been found to have lots of faults (Did you watch the other movies you are trashing either? I'm guessing not) does not automatically mean another movie is garbage. They are separate entities, made by discrete bodies.
Ridski posted: nan said:Ukraine on Fire is a documentary. Do you know what documentary is? What does it matter anyway since you refuse to watch the film. Plandemic is a documentary. Loose Change is a documentary. Patriot Purge is a documentary. Vaxxed is a documentary.----------------------------------So, according to you, there are bad, untruthful documentaries in the world so Ukraine on Fire must be a bad movie? Zero logic.Good thing I'm a patient special ed teacher. Let me break it down for you. It's called "Author's Purpose" when they teach it in elementary school.People make fiction/fantasy movies to entertain. They make documentaries to inform and persuade. People watch documentaries and they may be informed or persuaded or they may find fault with the material presented. Because one movie has been found to have lots of faults (Did you watch the other movies you are trashing either? I'm guessing not) does not automatically mean another movie is garbage. They are separate entities, made by discrete bodies.
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 4, 2022 at 12:33am
jamie said:BTW "Ukraine on Fire" is literally happening right now - thanks to a war started by . . . . . . Vlad. Do you dispute this? Or is it justified cause of the MSM and NATO?At least in the USA will can still say WAR! I condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm very anti-war. And Putin is responsible for the invasion. The US and NATO have a large part to play in this outcome. They are the ones telling you it's a singular mad man bent on world domination but if you look at history, they are clearly projecting. And yes, in the USA you can say WAR all you like because that's what they like best! They have one narrative allowed and it's WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, and more WAR. As long as you don't mention their involvement in dozens of coups and military bases all over the world and when they illegally invaded a foreign country while they are condemning another for doing the same. You have to always say that America is the good guys who only fight for freedom and they are now going to lie us into WWIII and you will completely agree with that and think it's a good thing. Calls for Ukrainian no-fly zone, though still a minority, are growing and dangerous
jamie said:BTW "Ukraine on Fire" is literally happening right now - thanks to a war started by . . . . . . Vlad. Do you dispute this? Or is it justified cause of the MSM and NATO?At least in the USA will can still say WAR! I condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine. I'm very anti-war. And Putin is responsible for the invasion. The US and NATO have a large part to play in this outcome. They are the ones telling you it's a singular mad man bent on world domination but if you look at history, they are clearly projecting. And yes, in the USA you can say WAR all you like because that's what they like best! They have one narrative allowed and it's WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, and more WAR. As long as you don't mention their involvement in dozens of coups and military bases all over the world and when they illegally invaded a foreign country while they are condemning another for doing the same. You have to always say that America is the good guys who only fight for freedom and they are now going to lie us into WWIII and you will completely agree with that and think it's a good thing. Calls for Ukrainian no-fly zone, though still a minority, are growing and dangerous
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 2, 2022 at 12:01pm
nan said: For more information about Ukrainian history and US involvement, I recommend this movie. It's now free on YouTube. Ukraine on Fire (Oliver Stone) We've since this mentioned by you at least 30 times before:https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/search/advanced?keyword=Ukraine+on+Fire&search-in=all-comments&filters=search-all-query-words&sort=newest-firstTo save us some time - specify a few minutes of it - point someone out - and what his current role is in what's happening today. I love all the Mark Twain quotes throughout. The anxious soundtrack throughout is incredibly effective also.It was a ridiculous doc then and it still is! Incredibly one sided - but effective propaganda for convincing some people out there.I don't have time to go down this rabbit hole - here's one pretty good response:https://khpg.org/en/1480891067
nan said: For more information about Ukrainian history and US involvement, I recommend this movie. It's now free on YouTube. Ukraine on Fire (Oliver Stone) We've since this mentioned by you at least 30 times before:https://maplewood.worldwebs.com/forums/search/advanced?keyword=Ukraine+on+Fire&search-in=all-comments&filters=search-all-query-words&sort=newest-firstTo save us some time - specify a few minutes of it - point someone out - and what his current role is in what's happening today. I love all the Mark Twain quotes throughout. The anxious soundtrack throughout is incredibly effective also.It was a ridiculous doc then and it still is! Incredibly one sided - but effective propaganda for convincing some people out there.I don't have time to go down this rabbit hole - here's one pretty good response:https://khpg.org/en/1480891067
What does Putin want (and whatabout it) Edited
Mar 2, 2022 at 7:49am
PVW said: This is an illustration of a point I made at the top of this thread -- what does the US government's feelings on Ukrainian freedom have to do with anything? It seems a complete non-sequitur. Though the preceding sentence provides a key -- per terp, Ukrainians are just "pawns in a geopolitical game between 2 nuclear superpowers." Poof -- Ukrainian agency vanished. This is odd, especially in the context of the very active war currently being fought in Ukraine against Ukrainians. It's Ukrainians fighting Russia, not Americans. What exactly does terp believe the Ukrainians are fighting for? What about the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution? I can't recall if terp has commented on this in MOL, but the common line among the anti-anti-Russians is that this was an American-led coup. Maybe, but let's ask one question -- suppose that the anti-anti-Russians are right and that was a fake revolution, just another example of American imperialism -- what would it have looked like if Ukrainians, on their own, had decided to overthrow the Yanukovych government? I suspect there's no answer here -- for the anti-anti-Russians, everything everywhere is due to the plottings and machinations of the American imperium. For more information about Ukrainian history and US involvement, I recommend this movie. It's now free on YouTube. Ukraine on Fire (Oliver Stone)
PVW said: This is an illustration of a point I made at the top of this thread -- what does the US government's feelings on Ukrainian freedom have to do with anything? It seems a complete non-sequitur. Though the preceding sentence provides a key -- per terp, Ukrainians are just "pawns in a geopolitical game between 2 nuclear superpowers." Poof -- Ukrainian agency vanished. This is odd, especially in the context of the very active war currently being fought in Ukraine against Ukrainians. It's Ukrainians fighting Russia, not Americans. What exactly does terp believe the Ukrainians are fighting for? What about the 2014 Ukrainian Revolution? I can't recall if terp has commented on this in MOL, but the common line among the anti-anti-Russians is that this was an American-led coup. Maybe, but let's ask one question -- suppose that the anti-anti-Russians are right and that was a fake revolution, just another example of American imperialism -- what would it have looked like if Ukrainians, on their own, had decided to overthrow the Yanukovych government? I suspect there's no answer here -- for the anti-anti-Russians, everything everywhere is due to the plottings and machinations of the American imperium. For more information about Ukrainian history and US involvement, I recommend this movie. It's now free on YouTube. Ukraine on Fire (Oliver Stone)
Shortcuts
SubForums
Categories
- Blogs
- Arts & Entertainment
- Covid Related
- DIY: Plants & Garden
- DIY: Home Fix-it
- WorldWebs Communities
- Education
- Food, Dining & Travel
- Humor
- Lost and Found
- Local History
- Maplewood Specific
- Parenting
- Pets & Animals
- Please Help
- Reading Room
- Recipes
- Religion
- Science & Technology
- Seniors Issues
- Soapbox
- South Orange Specific
- Russia and Alternative News related
- Sports
- Virtual Cafe
- Weather and Transit related
- Word and Picture Games
- Welcome Area
- Millburn/Short Hills
- West Orange
- Finance
- Platform Updates
- Soapbox: All Politics
Employment Wanted
Latest Jobs
Employment Wanted
-
Our amazing driving nanny is available for work.
Apr 28, 2024 at 8:05am
-
(No Fees) Hire A Baby Nurse Here for Your New Borns! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO FEES) Hire A Fresh Energetic Nanny/ Housekeeper Here ! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(NO Fees) Hire Housekeepers Here! ( 732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
(No Fees) Hire Home Health Aides Here! (732)-737-7165
Apr 27, 2024 at 1:46am
-
Summer Private Speech Therapist
Apr 26, 2024 at 9:12pm
-
Apr 26, 2024 at 1:58pm
-
(Classic Painting and Materials) Fair Prices. Spring and Summer Specials
Apr 25, 2024 at 5:14pm
Help Wanted
-
Part Time help for special needs young adult
Apr 27, 2024 at 4:43pm
-
Apr 25, 2024 at 6:15pm
Lessons/Instruction
For Sale
Advertisement
nan said: jamie said: Can you tell me when the last time we or NATO/West shelled any part of Russian territory? Do you believe Ukraine is a sovereign country? Or like Putin propaganda, Ukraine is part of Russia?Also - I like how you throw in words for Putin like "cared" & "protect" - tell that to anyone who uses the word "war" in Russia how much he cares about them - LOL. Or anyone who holds up a blank sign to protest. Do you think Russia is a true democracy? As I've said a thousand times, Ukraine is fighting a proxy war with Russia for the US/NATO/EU. It's not a sovereign county. It's some type of colony. It's very sad. If they really got to be neutral that would be big step up. Did you hear what China said about all of this? I'm just quoting from memory but they basically said they encouraged Ukraine to make decisions to help Ukraine without doing the bidding of the US. The US wants the fight to go to the last Ukrainian. Putin cares about Russia WAAAAAAY more than anyone the US would replace him with. When the US removes a leader they NEVER put someone nice in their place. They usually put someone in who brings in the death squads and steals all the assets. Some of the people protesting in Russia are funded by NGOs trying to start the same kind of color revolution we saw in Ukraine. How would you feel if Russia paid a bunch of people to protest Biden? You can barely stand to have someone hold an opinion outside of MSM. No I don't think Russia is a true democracy. I don't think that's in their constitution. They are a different kind of a country than ours. They have a different culture. We should try to get to know them better and get along as we did in the early 90s. That was such an incredible time when the Berlin Wall came down and we thought everyone would suddenly get along and have fun together. But NATO did not want to go out of business so we had to start Cold War 3.0.We don't have a democracy either, BTW. We have an oligarchy. Don't you remember that study that came out of Princeton? The wishes and/or needs of ordinary people have zero power. The people you tell me I have to vote for don't give a crap about us. oh god - you're a broken record.The NGOs - the coups - the nazis - the MSM - WWIII. Rinse repeat.Thanks for admitting the Ukraine is some sort of "colony" this is a lesson that Putin and the intro of propaganda films like Ukraine on Fire hopes to drill inLike the putin media says - Ukraine is Russia's problem, in the end they will deal with it. Just a question of when and who will lead. As we've seen, Yanuvovich is sitting on the sideline in Belarus waiting for the call once Zelenskyy is out. Where do you get the actual idea that we would not care if every Ukrainian died? link?Your adoration for Vlad is truly impressive and unwavering. Very rare these days.Do you seriously think they're fighting for us? Do you have any idea that some people living there prefer NOT to live under Putin? You are really being cruel to the average Ukrainian who is fighting to save their cities. They didn't start this one, some guy named Vladimir did. Again give me the message I should send to my friend in Lviv - step back? Tell Zelenskyy to give Vlad whatever he wants?