AlexL, your presence here is to obfuscate and distract from honest enquiry and since you won’t honestly disclose the name of the organization you represent I have no inclination to reply to you further.
37 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
AlexL, your presence here is to obfuscate and distract from honest enquiry and since you won’t honestly disclose the name of the organization you represent I have no inclination to reply to you further.
Debate forums thrive on evidence, not assumptions about motives. I’m here as an individual, not a mouthpiece for any group, and I’ve asked a fair question: can you back up your claim? If not, that’s your call—but dodging the question doesn’t make it go away. I’d still welcome a real answer if you’ve got one.
Now seriously: I represent here the shadowy organization of “People Who Ask for Evidence” - a truly nefarious group indeed…
The type of content seen here was commonly known but suppressed by Reuters and the msm, I found only on ‘back channels’. With the war close to some kind of resolution one can be assured plenty more horror stories are going to come out of Ukraine.
https://youtu.be/Kp26UsVbwtQ?si=_3vVe4InkR_xsunS
“De-Nazification of Ukraine”. Both as ‘a justification’ (on its own, nonsense) for Putin’s invasion - and a potential stumbling block in present negotiations and concessions made - needs clarifying. Yes, neoNazis exist in Ukraine. No, they are not electorally representative or socially significant. But yes, they are powerful in the military, notorious for atrocities in the Donbass and have political, cult-like and ideological goals over and above the democratic process which can be destabilizing after the war. They about equally hate Russians, Russian-Ukrainains – and “the neoliberal West”. Any who still believe Russia/Ukraine was a black-and-white issue: Ukraine is not as innocent as the media had us believe, and should not have been partnered with.
(All the more cause for first averting and now ending the war).
UnHerd is reliably independent.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MUgKTfe-IqA
Public justification for Boris Johnson’s intervention to block early Ukr/Russ peace talks (April 2022) and inciting Ukrainians to fight on until victorious as he assured them, was enhanced by the most timely “Bucha massacre” by Russian forces (- “discovered” days after they’d left the village and voluntarily retreated from Kyiv’s outskirts. ) A Press connection advised me soon after, in his circles it was a known false flag operation, and “The Bucha butchery is a buncha lies”. Certainly a hoax known by Zelensky and allies concerned. There’re sufficient evildoings to level against Putin and Russia without blaming on them the evildoings and evasions by ‘our’ side and ‘our’ complicit media.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJJ8fvVme04
1 Like
It doesn’t feel like a known Putin supporter would be kidnapped and killed by Russian forces. And for a strong man Putin doesn’t seem to have control of military commanders, their actions of organizing and carrying out systematic killings to say nothing of allowing sadistic ones could not have been thought of as enhancing Russia’s war effort.
6 hours ago, Jon C said:
The extraordinarily elaborate Wiki (and Reuters, and, and -) “investigation”, rather testifies to the staged production that was “the Bucha massacre”.
The “word on the ground” agreed by impartial eyewitnesses and correspondents so far kept unreported in the MSM, was accurate - and, as the facts and truth usually are, much simpler.
Simply, the bodies in the streets ‘arrived’ after the Russians left.
Here was an orchestration for world propaganda, doubtless a MI6 psy-op, the dirty work, an atrocity in itself, carried out by Azov battalion, and which came at a crucial moment:
Arranged Istanbul peace talks–that must NOT be allowed to proceed.
In the words of one writer, Petr Lavrenin:
"The story of the Bucha massacre emerged at a time when both the Ukrainian and Russian sides, albeit with varying degrees of optimism, were reporting progress in ceasefire negotiations.
“The Ukrainian side has become more realistic regarding issues related to Ukraine’s neutral and non-nuclear status, but the draft agreement is not ready for top-level discussions,” saidVladimir Medinsky, head of the Russian delegation and an aide to the President of Russia. Meanwhile, Ukrainian negotiator David Arahamiya noted that the document was ready, and the two presidents could meet and discuss it.
“However, following reports of the “Bucha massacre,” Zelensky withdrew from the peace talks”.
“The incident in Bucha became a pivotal moment that not only derailed peace negotiations in Istanbul but also intensified Russia’s diplomatic isolation in the West, led to the mass expulsion of Russian diplomats and tighter sanctions, and resulted in Ukraine receiving additional military aid from NATO states”.
–
But who in the West, to this day exactly 3 years later, was informed and knows there was a ceasefire negotiation on the table initiated by Putin and Zelensky a few weeks into the invasion?
Exactly.
1 Like
40 minutes ago, whYNOT said:
The extraordinarily elaborate Wiki (and Reuters, and, and -) “investigation”, rather testifies to the staged production that was “the Bucha massacre”. […]
What else can this moron say ?
Whatever you’d like…?
Tad, are you confused by the idea that terrorizing civilian populations can be an effective tactic to compel capitulation in wars?
AlexL, surely you’ve noticed by now that Whynot may as well be a Russian chatbot, for all the critical thinking he’s shown himself capable of. Is it even worth the trouble to insult him (accurate though it was)?
Not confused at all , the idea has strategic advantage.
So what did
2 hours ago, tadmjones said:
could not have been thought of as enhancing Russia’s war effort.
mean?
Perpetrating the atrocities would not in themselves help the Russian effort. They hadn’t invaded with a force according to some military strategist large enough to sustain an occupation, retreat must have been a realistic consideration given the non immediate fall of Kiev or capitulation by Ukrainians, so other than pure sadism what was the terrorization to produce? what advantage would they gain, a safer retreat ?
I’m not sure what relationship there is between your response and the question. A potential need to someday retreat has nothing to do with the usual utility (that you yourself admit to) of terrorizing civilians in the hope to force capitulation.
Are there many similar cases currently before the international courts, specifically detailing Russian atrocities to the civilian population? Notwithstanding the shelling it is, it is in fact a brutal war and these accounts are coming from the actual war zone(s), can’t necessarily trust the veracity of information produced by either ‘side’.
4 hours ago, tadmjones said:
Perpetrating the atrocities would not in themselves help the Russian effort. They hadn’t invaded with a force according to some military strategist large enough to sustain an occupation, retreat must have been a realistic consideration given the non immediate fall of Kiev or capitulation by Ukrainians, so other than pure sadism what was the terrorization to produce? what advantage would they gain, a safer retreat ?
I’m glad someone can view the totality of evidence and think, Tad. The enormity of the deceitful and omnipresent Narrative has been almost the biggest feature of this war: “Putin’s imperial intentions” - to “Russian atrocities” - to - “Russian retreats” -to - “huge Russian losses”: you name it; has been exposed by one minor detail:
Ukraine lost.
Therefore, “somebody” has been lying to us. All along.
From the start in Jan '22 to only about 5-6 months ago, “they” were still insisting Ukraine was doing well, and only needed more xyz weapons/armaments, more manpower, more advances, etc.,etc.. Then “we” can and will “win”.
Suddenly, those military “pundits” and other experts like the dozens of “historians” I heard foretelling a Russian invasion of the West, we saw all over Youtube even on supposedly reputable channels like BBC have gone silent, but not before lately egging on another +/- 100K Ukrainians to be sacrificed - in a losing battle to recover the Donbas and other oblasts, an outcome even an amateur like me could anticipate.
Their lying or self-delusional ( I can’t tell which) encouragement to make Ukraine fight on, barring any diplomacy, ceasefire and possible peace summit I consider a war crime.
Only victors may be forgiven their crimes. But Ukraine has lost (predictably, given Russia’s “escalatory dominance”) and soon now there’ll be a flood of whistleblowers and the like coming out and admitting or exposing malfeances and atrocities** by the Ukr government and military under advice or with “plausible deniability” by their Western backers.
**e.g. It will be ascertained that soft civilian targets (markets, homes) have been attacked relentlessly and deliberately, but very seldom by Russian fire. This avoidance of civilian casualties was handed down as policy to the Russian troops. Most casualties (of their own people, it must be noted) can be attributed to the UAF.
e.g. that observed “kneecapping” and summary executions of Russian pows in the field was commonplace according to some reporters. There are few angels there.
I wouldn’t believe what either side in a quasi civil war claims about treatment from the other. An earlier end to the war should bring an end or lessen any further suffering, which sounds like the right or civilized goal overall, and I’m more than thankful that myself and fellow countrymen can armchair quarterback all the war analysis from genuine safety, which while fairly robust is still ultimately limited by any escalation involving a nuclear power in a hot war.
US policy should be, what I prefer it to be, is whatever measures are necessary to end the conflict even if means stopping aid to an adversary/victim of Russian aggression.
This incident in particular had Lindsey Graham vowing to do everything in his power to make sure there was no Ukrainian capitulation down to the last Ukrainian and the Russians that went with them, you know for democracy! tm. It seems he has changed the tune of late , so atrocities may not all be the same.
On 4/9/2025 at 2:45 AM, tadmjones said:
US policy should be, what I prefer it to be, is whatever measures are necessary to end the conflict even if means stopping aid to an adversary/victim of Russian aggression.
I’ve taken flak for my purported rejection of western Enlightenment values, which obviously points to my “supporting Russian aggression”, promoting propaganda, “Putin”, and so on, when it’s my very support of those values (and the rational good of USA) and the harsh consequences for Ukraine which impelled my efforts. I perhaps naively expected better from “the West”, especially America, than to lower their high standards and good sense in allowing this war to begin and to escalate–at the foreseeable price paid by the third party, win, lose or draw - the Ukrainians, who ultimately fought on their behalf.
My “double standards” maybe. Since the US/NATO/EU-led West is substantially free-er than Russia (and the Ukraine Government), it ought to have acted on its own standards - so - gone to extremes to prevent a senseless war through concessions from all sides.
Rather, the “Russian aggression” was presented to “we the public” as a predetermined fait accompli without cause, like a force of Nature, leaving only one thing to do, conquer it at nearly all costs.
Many times you heard “unprovoked and unjustified” - when we know by now there was provocation - while justification for the invasion is arguable. Lately, that early mantra has fallen away in favor of “Putin’s full-scale invasion”, flying against the facts of the minor invasion force. The PR cover-up and face-saving goes on.
Cause-effect. Did NATO cause the problems and disingenuously appear to be the solution to the “problems” it created? It sure seems that they expected trouble by building a formidable half-million NATO-specced Ukraine Army over the years since 2014 while half-promising Ukr NATO accession down the line. Did Putin aggress because of these alarming (to Russians) factors (and the festering civil war) - or - because he ‘would have’, anyhow - because that’s what sociopath Despots with global ambitions are “determined” - to do? Going on available evidence, I’ve answered to these I believe.
One upshot to any who care, is that the Western alliance and the US have lost prestige and a measure of respect in the world’s eyes, by not engaging diplomatically from the start toward a peaceful outcome - on principle, one non-sacrificial to the Ukrainians. And by - to the West’s foes who appreciate brute force and sacrifice - not “winning the war”.
2 Likes
(Disinformation Review, 24 April 2025, https://mailchi.mp/euvsdisinfo/dr361-6228934?e=f10f51a6bd)
The myth that won’t die: blaming NATO for Russia’s war
In the murky landscape of disinformation, few narratives have proven as stubbornly persistent as the claim that NATO expansion provoked Russia into invading Ukraine.
This myth, recycled and rebranded by Kremlin apologists, shifts blame for Russia’s aggression onto the West – ignoring history and facts. It’s time to call this narrative what it is: a convenient distortion designed to justify an unjustifiable war.
Myth 1: “Russia was provoked. NATO broke a promise”
One of the most common myths in pro-Kremlin rhetoric is that NATO promised not to expand “one inch eastward” after the Cold War. But there is no evidence of any formal [or even oral/A.L.] agreement to that effect. Multiple Western leaders and declassified documents confirm that while there were discussions about NATO’s position in Germany during reunification, no binding or global commitment was made to freeze the alliance’s borders indefinitely.
And here’s a crucial point: if Russia truly wanted such a guarantee, it knows full well how international diplomacy works. It would have pushed for a treaty, a formal accord, or at the very least, a publicly documented commitment. But that never happened – because no such promise was ever officially made nor sought. Even Mikhail Gorbachev, the Soviet leader at that time, confirmed there was no agreement or promise to not enlarge NATO. In diplomacy, if there’s no treaty, no signed agreement, and no public declaration, then there is no binding promise. Russia understands this. It’s not ignorance – it’s deliberate revisionism by Putin.
More importantly, sovereign nations in Eastern Europe wanted to join NATO – not because NATO sought to encircle Russia, but because these countries had endured decades of Soviet occupation and invasions, and were determined never to return to that subjugation. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania – these were not pawns being played by Washington. They were democracies making strategic choices for their security. To suggest otherwise is to deny them agency and ignore their history and sovereignty.
Myth 2: “Ukraine was about to join NATO. Russia had no choice”
Despite repeated claims, Ukraine was not on the verge of joining NATO in early 2022. While Ukraine had long expressed interest in membership, there was no formal invitation, no fast-track process. The idea that NATO membership for Ukraine was imminent is more fiction than fact. It was a distant possibility, not a current policy.
Russia’s ultimatum in December 2021 for a guarantee that Ukraine would never join NATO was never a genuine diplomatic offer – it was a pretext. Demanding that NATO not only bar Ukraine forever but also roll back its presence from all countries that joined after 1997, erasing decades of sovereign decisions by Eastern European states, was not a negotiation – it was an impossible demand. Putin knew NATO could never accept it without abandoning its core principles and the security of its members. The ultimatum was meant to be rejected. It was a setup, not a diplomatic effort (as we’ve outlined here).
And perhaps the clearest evidence that NATO wasn’t the real reason for the invasion? Putin’s own words. In his February 2022 speech just before the invasion, he hardly focused on NATO at all. Instead, he questioned Ukraine’s very right to exist as an independent state – claiming it was “created by Lenin” and should be part of Russia. That rhetoric points not to defensive concerns, but to imperial ambition.
If Russia truly feared Ukraine joining NATO, launching a full-scale invasion is perhaps the most effective way to guarantee closer Western alignment and support. The war did not stop NATO from getting closer to Ukraine – it accelerated that process. That’s not fear, that’s a gamble rooted in different ambitions.
Myth 3: “Russia feared NATO on its border”
The idea that Russia invaded Ukraine out of fear of NATO is contradicted by its own actions. If Moscow truly saw NATO as an immediate threat, believing NATO was planning to use Ukraine as a launch pad for a war against Russia, it would likely have calculated a more cautious approach, particularly given NATO’s military power.
In fact, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 demonstrates the opposite: a calculated confidence that NATO would not intervene directly, and that NATO was not seeking a war with Russia. And that calculation was correct. NATO, despite its military power, repeatedly emphasised that it would not send troops into Ukraine or engage Russian forces directly. Putin knew this – and he gambled accordingly.
If the Kremlin genuinely feared NATO, it would not have provoked a scenario that could bring NATO’s attention and weaponry even closer. But it did – because the real motivation wasn’t fear of NATO. It was a desire to reassert control over Ukraine and prevent its general westward ambitions.
Myth 4: “There was a coup in Ukraine in 2014, led by the West”
This tired trope tries to erase the will of the Ukrainian people, who took to the streets in 2013–2014 demanding accountability, reform, and an end to corrupt Russian-backed leadership. The Revolution of Dignity was not orchestrated by the CIA or NATO, it was sparked by President Yanukovych’s abrupt rejection of a popular free trade and association agreement with the EU and his violent crackdown on protesters.
The Kremlin frames this democratic uprising as a Western-led coup because it cannot acknowledge that its neighbours might choose a different path – one that doesn’t revolve around Moscow. For authoritarian regimes, the power of free people is always the enemy.
What the myth ignores
To truly understand this war, look not at NATO’s decisions, but at Vladimir Putin’s own words. In his infamous July 2021 essay and February 2022 speech, Putin dismissed Ukrainian sovereignty and framed the country as a historical part of Russia. His motivations aren’t defensive – they’re imperial. The invasion was about reasserting control over a former Soviet republic, crushing a thriving democracy on Russia’s border, and signalling to other post-Soviet states that turning westward comes with consequences.
Putin doesn’t fear NATO. He fears democracy. He fears that Russia’s democratic neighbours, previously occupied by Moscow, would prove Russians could live freely without oligarchs and authoritarianism too. That’s the real threat to the Kremlin’s power.
NATO is the excuse, not the cause
Blaming NATO for Russia’s war is a narrative of convenience, not credibility. It absolves the aggressor, ignores the agency of smaller nations, and flips the script on decades of post-Cold War history. It’s a myth that serves only one master: the Kremlin.
Don’t be deceived. Ukraine did not “provoke” Russia any more than a burglar is provoked by a house installing a lock. This war is not about broken promises or misunderstood red lines. It’s about power, control, and the refusal to let others live freely outside of Moscow’s grasp.
The sooner we bury this myth, the sooner we can focus on holding the right party accountable – and standing up for the truth.
4 Likes