Thursday 4 September 2014

Ten easy questions for those who say Russia invaded Ukraine

Dear supporters of the hypothesis that Russia has “invaded” Ukraine, please answer these simple questions:




        1.     Where are all the Russian forces that have carried out this “invasion”? Where are their vehicles, their support services, and their heavy weaponry? Where are the photographs proving this? Why is it that except for a black and white picture showing tiny vehicles, which could be anyone’s and anywhere, the West hasn’t provided one shred of evidence?

       2.     What has Russia got to gain by carrying out an “invasion” by 1000 soldiers, as per Obama’s own claims? 1000 soldiers aren’t even two battalions.

       3.     If Russia invaded Ukraine, why is it that Russia is pressing for the rebels to settle for a solution within Ukraine, in peace talks? Why isn’t Russia recognising the independence of the Lugansk and Donetsk People’s Republics? Why, in fact, did Putin ask the Duma to revoke the authorisation it had given him to intervene militarily in Ukraine?

       4.     If the civil war in Ukraine is between “good” Ukrainians and “evil” Russians, why is the Prime Minister of Novorossiya, Aleksandr Zakharchenko, an ethnic Ukrainian?

        5.     If the war is between Russian forces and Ukrainian troops, why is it that the Ukrainians who have been surrounded prefer to flee into Russia, after which they are returned to Ukraine?

       6.     Why is it that the Ukraine army finds it necessary to randomly shell cities in Eastern Ukraine if they’re fighting Russian troops?

 7.  If the Russians have invaded Ukraine, why haven’t they – given the fact that the Ukraine army has virtually ceased to exist – made a push to take Kiev, something they could do with no trouble at all, and settle the matter permanently?

8.  What are Polish mercenaries and Scandinavian Nazi volunteers doing fighting on the Ukrainian side? And why does the Ukrainian side have openly Nazi formations like the Azov and Dnepr Battalions in the front line?

       9.     Why is it that when, in peace talks, the delegates from Novorossiya said they were willing to settle for autonomy within Ukraine, it was “President” Poroshenko who refused to sign a peace deal?

       10.  Why is it that though the West keeps accusing Russia of having given the separatists “sophisticated” weapons, they can’t show a single item which the separatists couldn’t simply have obtained from the thousands of surrendering and defecting Ukrainian Army troops?

I am not even going to ask you why the US and its Dutch, Australian and British allies, in conjunction with the so-called government of Ukraine haven’t released the information contained in the MH17 black boxes. Since you’re so convinced that Russia has invaded Ukraine, the questions I am asking should be easy enough to answer.

Right?

(And, finally, just as a bonus, here's an eleventh question for you:)

11. After all the endless lies the West has been telling since the Korean War, about Tonkin Bay, about the Kuwait incubator babies, about the alleged massacres in Kosovo and Libya, about Iraq's WMDs, about Assad's "gas attacks", why should we believe a single word you have to say about anything at all?

"Inevitable end for dear fascists"



Further reading:





3 comments:

  1. Personal thanks from me for an actual article.

    ReplyDelete

  2. 5. "If the war is between Russian forces and Ukrainian troops, why is it that the Ukrainians who have been surrounded prefer to flee into Russia, after which they are returned to Ukraine?" What was their alternative, to have all of them get killed (they had run completely out of ammo at that time) If you need surrender someone, it's probably better to surrender to the forces that *pretend* to be neutral, rather than the ones that don't even do that pretense. If the Russian army kills you or treats you as an enemy, at least they get bad PR that way.

    6. "randomly"?

    7. How would Russia taking Kiev settle the matter "permanently"? With the indefinite and constant military occupation of 45 million people? Ask the Americans that occupied Iraq how costly that is, or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Direct military occupation of other countries with hostile populations isn't cost-free, that's why Russia prefers to occupy only portions of them and threaten the rest into submission.

    8. "What are Polish mercenaries and Scandinavian Nazi volunteers doing fighting on the Ukrainian side?" In regards to the nazis, there are individual scumbags on every side, but it's Russia that has the support of international fascism *en masse*, see http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.gr/2014/08/1984-russian-and-european-fascists.html . "And why does the Ukrainian side have openly Nazi formations like the Azov and Dnepr Battalions in the front line?" I'm guessing it's because Ukraine needs any volunteer it can get, and militarists nationalists (like nazis are) are always useful source of that.

    9. "Why is it that when, in peace talks, the delegates from Novorossiya said they were willing to settle for autonomy within Ukraine, it was “President” Poroshenko who refused to sign a peace deal?" I would have to know what the 'peace deal' entailed, but if it entailed vetoing state decision, it was obviously a bad deal to take. Or alternatively it could be because Poroshenko believed he was winning at the time, and believed that Russia wouldn't invade en masse as it later did.

    11. "Why should we believe a single word you have to say about anything at all" Don't believe words, believe the evidence of your own eyes. See the video whose link I posted.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5. "If the war is between Russian forces and Ukrainian troops, why is it that the Ukrainians who have been surrounded prefer to flee into Russia, after which they are returned to Ukraine?" What was their alternative, to have all of them get killed (they had run completely out of ammo at that time) If you need surrender someone, it's probably better to surrender to the forces that *pretend* to be neutral, rather than the ones that don't even do that pretense. If the Russian army kills you or treats you as an enemy, at least they get bad PR that way.

      So why is Russia sending them back? Because it’s PR?


      6. "randomly"?

      So you’re saying they’re shelling those cities targeting anything? Mighty poor targeting, in that case, consifering the number of civilians killed.


      7. How would Russia taking Kiev settle the matter "permanently"? With the indefinite and constant military occupation of 45 million people? Ask the Americans that occupied Iraq how costly that is, or the Soviets in Afghanistan. Direct military occupation of other countries with hostile populations isn't cost-free, that's why Russia prefers to occupy only portions of them and threaten the rest into submission.

      It would settle the matter permanently because the Nazis and the Eugarchy could be rooted out. I’d have thought that was obvious. There would be no need for an “indefinite occupation”.


      8. "What are Polish mercenaries and Scandinavian Nazi volunteers doing fighting on the Ukrainian side?" In regards to the nazis, there are individual scumbags on every side, but it's Russia that has the support of international fascism *en masse*, see http://anton-shekhovtsov.blogspot.gr/2014/08/1984-russian-and-european-fascists.html . "And why does the Ukrainian side have openly Nazi formations like the Azov and Dnepr Battalions in the front line?" I'm guessing it's because Ukraine needs any volunteer it can get, and militarists nationalists (like nazis are) are always useful source of that.

      Or is it because the Nazis are the only ones ready to fight, and because the Eugarchy wants them out of the way?


      9. "Why is it that when, in peace talks, the delegates from Novorossiya said they were willing to settle for autonomy within Ukraine, it was “President” Poroshenko who refused to sign a peace deal?" I would have to know what the 'peace deal' entailed, but if it entailed vetoing state decision, it was obviously a bad deal to take. Or alternatively it could be because Poroshenko believed he was winning at the time, and believed that Russia wouldn't invade en masse as it later did.

      Please prove that Russia invaded. All your blather has not proved a siongle word of that. You say Russia invaded, you have to prove it. Just saying “Russia invaded” won’t cut it.


      11. "Why should we believe a single word you have to say about anything at all" Don't believe words, believe the evidence of your own eyes. See the video whose link I posted

      Because that proves Russia invaded?

      Is that the best you can do?

      Delete

Full comment moderation is enabled on this site, which means that your comment will only be visible after the blog administrator (in other words, yours truly) approves it. The purpose of this is not to censor dissenting viewpoints; in fact, such viewpoints are welcome, though it may lead to challenges to provide sources and/or acerbic replies (I do not tolerate stupidity).

The purpose of this moderation is to eliminate spam, of which this blog attracts an inordinate amount. Spammers, be warned: it takes me less time to delete your garbage than it takes for you to post it.

Proceed.