Dear Mr Stoll (for that is the name you go by in another forum).
Your comments are instructive in the art of pro-war trolling, providing, as they do, a classic example of war-propaganda. They aim to stigmatise me and my work and cause others to avoid association with me, not through reason, but purely via abuse. Given that I am only a tiny player on the internet sphere, I take this as an indication of the overkill that US-NATO feels it needs to engage in so as to combat any opinions contrary to its propaganda, even when it has managed to censor most branded and government news and analysis sites, so as to prevent Australians from hearing anything from the other side in the Ukraine war, for fear that people then might call a halt to the continuous US-NATO hostile intervention along Russia's borders.
I'm not called Mr Stoll in any other forum nor do I somehow as a private citizen represent NATO. Both these claims are deranged. I am also not pro-war. I want Putin and his murderous thugs out of Ukraine. NATO poses no threat to Putin's Russia because Russia has nuclear weapons. Until relatively recently, NATO countries like France were even selling weapons to Putin. Stop your warmongering and tell your friend Mr. Putin to stop murdering, torturing and raping Ukrainians
Whilst you have at least posted a response to the above Video testimony by a Ukrainian woman against her US puppet ruler President Volodymyr Zelensky, there is little more substance.
You claim to not be 'pro-war' whilst repeating the lies of the same corporate newsmdedia that lied to us about "Weapons of mass destruction", Libya, Syria, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, etc., etc.
One 'argument' you have presented is:
NATO poses no threat to Putin's Russia because Russia has nuclear weapons.
The Russia/Ukraine border, is at one point, less less than 400 kilometres from Moscow. How would US nuclear-armed missiles based on Ukraine, as little as 400 kilometres from Moscow and other large Russian cities not be a threat to Russia?
Back in October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, US President John F. Kennedy conceded that Russian President Kikita Khruschev was right to be alarmed that US nuclear-armed missiles were based in Turkey. In return for the Soviet Union removing its nuclear-armed missiles from Cuba, JFK quietly removed the missiles from Turkey.
How is it any less reasonable for Vladimir Putin to feel no less threatened by US nuclear-armed missiles placed that much closer to Moscow?
Clearly, given the United States' record, since 1945, for waging bloody wars against so much of humanity, again, as I explained here, how could all Russians, including Vladimir Putin, not be terrified at the prospect of Ukraine being covered with US missile launchers, military airfields, naval bases and bio-weapons facilities?
Whilst I would feel somewhat mystified as to why Russia would need to buy weapons from France, I fail to see how this is relevant.
You wrote:
… tell your friend Mr. Putin to stop murdering, torturing and raping Ukrainians.
Time and time again, Russia has refuted claims that it has deliberately killed Ukrainian civilians. In fact, the Ukrainian neo-nazis forces have again and again fired at Russian forces from behind human shields. They use human shields precisely because they realise that the Russian army tries very hard to avoid killing civilians.
The Russian Army even tries hard not to kill regular Ukrainian soldiers (as opposed to neo-nazis including those in the Azov Battalion). When they launched the Special Military Operation on 24 February they did not launch missiles at any of Ukrainian army barracks in which tens of thousands would have been asleep.
If you still insist that the Russian Army is committing atrocities against Ukrainian civilians, please feel welcome to show us what you consider to be evidence of Russian atrocities and, perhaps, we can proceed from there.
Steve M. /Mr Stoll,
The fact that you only repeat slogans, use intemperate language, and never give any evidence or argument, makes your assertions impossible to take seriously. They are just examples of how someone can be emotionally swayed by one version of events to get angry at another version. Then again, trolls use the same technique: repetition and insults. Here, we use argument.
Okay, I will take you on your word and see what happens. Is this what you mean by your argument? "NATO poses no threat to Putin's Russia because Russia has nuclear weapons. Until relatively recently, NATO countries like France were even selling weapons to Putin."
Zelensky was talking about stocking up on nuclear weapons, and that seemed to be the immediate provocation for Russia's special operation (invasion). Russia would not be able to intercept medium range nuclear weapons targeted against it, because the distance between Russia and Ukraine is too short. If Ukraine were to deploy such medium range nuclear weapons, that would also give the United States a chance at a first strike on Russia. So Russia had no defence except to invade Ukraine and destroy all of Ukraine's military arsenals and infrastructure, which is what President Putin announced was intended by Russia's Special Operation.
The threat to Russia from Ukraine has been political and economic, with a US coup against a pro-Russia government, accompanied by US backing of civil war against the pro-Russian populations of Donbass. The US has been pumping weapons into Ukraine and helping train its militia. Until the US coup removed the pro-Russian president, there was not much trouble in that region. Ongoing for years have been the United States attempts to prevent Russia from supplying gas to Europe via Nordstream 2. The United States finally succeeded in getting Germany to suspend its agreement with Russia for the pipeline (which Germany had originally asked to be built) when it drew the whole of the EU into war against Russia. That is largely what the war is about. It is a trade and currency war (since USD petrol currency is crucial for US international dominance).
Obviously a lot of other trade considerations are affected, but I won't complicate my answer with those. Except to say that US-NATO's efforts to destroy the Russian economy seem more likely to destroy US-NATO allies' economies. Somehow US-NATO forgot about China, India, etc, plus all the other countries that have suffered through US-NATO invasions and economic interference.
As for France and other NATO countries selling weapons to Russia, it defies common sense and safety, but it probably doesn't defy commercial sense.
Comments
Steve M (not verified)
Sat, 2022-04-02 12:58
Permalink
Russian troll
Sheila Newman
Sun, 2022-04-03 10:24
Permalink
US-NATO troll callling me a Russian Troll
Dear Mr Stoll (for that is the name you go by in another forum).
Your comments are instructive in the art of pro-war trolling, providing, as they do, a classic example of war-propaganda. They aim to stigmatise me and my work and cause others to avoid association with me, not through reason, but purely via abuse. Given that I am only a tiny player on the internet sphere, I take this as an indication of the overkill that US-NATO feels it needs to engage in so as to combat any opinions contrary to its propaganda, even when it has managed to censor most branded and government news and analysis sites, so as to prevent Australians from hearing anything from the other side in the Ukraine war, for fear that people then might call a halt to the continuous US-NATO hostile intervention along Russia's borders.
Steve M (not verified)
Sun, 2022-04-03 12:15
Permalink
Russian troll no. 2
James Sinnamon
Mon, 2022-04-04 19:05
Permalink
An apologist for the US and its neo-nazi footsoldiers?
Steve M,
I am still waiting for your response to my comment Russia or the United States - which is the aggressor? of Wednesday 30 March - more than 6 days ago.
Whilst you have at least posted a response to the above Video testimony by a Ukrainian woman against her US puppet ruler President Volodymyr Zelensky, there is little more substance.
You claim to not be 'pro-war' whilst repeating the lies of the same corporate newsmdedia that lied to us about "Weapons of mass destruction", Libya, Syria, the Vietnam war, the Korean war, etc., etc.
One 'argument' you have presented is:
The Russia/Ukraine border, is at one point, less less than 400 kilometres from Moscow. How would US nuclear-armed missiles based on Ukraine, as little as 400 kilometres from Moscow and other large Russian cities not be a threat to Russia?
Back in October 1962, during the Cuban Missile Crisis, US President John F. Kennedy conceded that Russian President Kikita Khruschev was right to be alarmed that US nuclear-armed missiles were based in Turkey. In return for the Soviet Union removing its nuclear-armed missiles from Cuba, JFK quietly removed the missiles from Turkey.
How is it any less reasonable for Vladimir Putin to feel no less threatened by US nuclear-armed missiles placed that much closer to Moscow?
Clearly, given the United States' record, since 1945, for waging bloody wars against so much of humanity, again, as I explained here, how could all Russians, including Vladimir Putin, not be terrified at the prospect of Ukraine being covered with US missile launchers, military airfields, naval bases and bio-weapons facilities?
Whilst I would feel somewhat mystified as to why Russia would need to buy weapons from France, I fail to see how this is relevant.
You wrote:
Time and time again, Russia has refuted claims that it has deliberately killed Ukrainian civilians. In fact, the Ukrainian neo-nazis forces have again and again fired at Russian forces from behind human shields. They use human shields precisely because they realise that the Russian army tries very hard to avoid killing civilians.
The Russian Army even tries hard not to kill regular Ukrainian soldiers (as opposed to neo-nazis including those in the Azov Battalion). When they launched the Special Military Operation on 24 February they did not launch missiles at any of Ukrainian army barracks in which tens of thousands would have been asleep.
If you still insist that the Russian Army is committing atrocities against Ukrainian civilians, please feel welcome to show us what you consider to be evidence of Russian atrocities and, perhaps, we can proceed from there.
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 2022-04-04 13:06
Permalink
Response to Steve/Mr Stoll
Steve M (not verified)
Mon, 2022-04-04 14:19
Permalink
Vile Putinista Propaganda
I have presented an argument. Meanwhile you recycle the lies generated by the bloodthirsty Chinese and Russian propaganda organs. Utterly shameful.
Editor's comment: The 'argument' that Steve M presented is all of two sentences, consisting of 27 words. Here it is, again:
I think its time that Steve M applied his talents elsewhere.
Sheila Newman
Mon, 2022-04-04 17:11
Permalink
Response to Steve: Ukraine could assist US-NATO attack on Russia
Okay, I will take you on your word and see what happens. Is this what you mean by your argument? "NATO poses no threat to Putin's Russia because Russia has nuclear weapons. Until relatively recently, NATO countries like France were even selling weapons to Putin."
Zelensky was talking about stocking up on nuclear weapons, and that seemed to be the immediate provocation for Russia's special operation (invasion). Russia would not be able to intercept medium range nuclear weapons targeted against it, because the distance between Russia and Ukraine is too short. If Ukraine were to deploy such medium range nuclear weapons, that would also give the United States a chance at a first strike on Russia. So Russia had no defence except to invade Ukraine and destroy all of Ukraine's military arsenals and infrastructure, which is what President Putin announced was intended by Russia's Special Operation.
The threat to Russia from Ukraine has been political and economic, with a US coup against a pro-Russia government, accompanied by US backing of civil war against the pro-Russian populations of Donbass. The US has been pumping weapons into Ukraine and helping train its militia. Until the US coup removed the pro-Russian president, there was not much trouble in that region. Ongoing for years have been the United States attempts to prevent Russia from supplying gas to Europe via Nordstream 2. The United States finally succeeded in getting Germany to suspend its agreement with Russia for the pipeline (which Germany had originally asked to be built) when it drew the whole of the EU into war against Russia. That is largely what the war is about. It is a trade and currency war (since USD petrol currency is crucial for US international dominance).
Obviously a lot of other trade considerations are affected, but I won't complicate my answer with those. Except to say that US-NATO's efforts to destroy the Russian economy seem more likely to destroy US-NATO allies' economies. Somehow US-NATO forgot about China, India, etc, plus all the other countries that have suffered through US-NATO invasions and economic interference.
As for France and other NATO countries selling weapons to Russia, it defies common sense and safety, but it probably doesn't defy commercial sense.
Gloria O (not verified)
Tue, 2022-04-05 16:07
Permalink
Pro-Russian German car protest - not on script either
Not everyone on script in Germany either. People are seeing through the propaganda.
Add comment