Similar Posts

- Advertisement -

10 Comments

  1. “Russian doctrine like their Soviet predecessors accepts the use of range of weapons that NATO armies do not use. ”

    Coalition of the Willing (Ben’s precious Liberal Democracies) used white phosphorus in Iraq on enemy positions i..e. towns and cities full of civilians and refugees – “Shake and Bake”.

    And then there is all that depleted uranium blowing around Iraq and mutant babies…

    Ben is acting like a stenographer for the Ukraine Government Propaganda Department.

    1. Thank you – thought the same myself – that the US were guilty of already having committed both sins.
      I have noticed a pattern in our media. If the USA are doing the bombing and reports come out of them hitting hospitals, etc, there is usually denial, then admission that an unfortunate error occurred, but it is excused with a smart phrase like ‘collateral damage’ or ‘human shields’
      Funnily enough, when it is the Russians doing bombing, our media are full of tear-wrenching human interest stories accentuating the humanitarian catastrophe being inflicted upon those innocent victims. In full depth! (It was the case in Syria too.)
      Hager and Stephenson finally nailed NZ Defence for the deaths of kids and civilians in Afghanistan. Yet we never got any insight into the misery or humanitarian disaster being suffered by those Afghanistan families.
      Not much political and racist bias in our news media, is there?

  2. Yup its the movement towards Novarussia that provides the leverage Putin wants. Threat of loss of access to the Black Sea ports for Ukrainian exports might force Ukraine to cede Crimea, even to Kherson for its water. most of Luhansk and Donetsk, and even Kharkiv and or Mariupol.

    Given Putin has stopped requesting Ukraine surrender as a peace term – his current course is to seek a deal that only a still independent and internationally recognised Ukraine can give. His strategy is now to get out of this with an end to sanctions and keep Europe as an oil and gas customer.

  3. Ben needs more reliable sources. Try thesaker.is for Russian sources, or Scott Ritter for ex US military comment.

    1. I second that Nick. The one sided totally incorrect rubbish coming from western media is risible.

  4. I saw a Twitter vid purported by a French volunteer who was at the site of the missile strike on the Polish border. If it is accurate the Russians took out a mercenary / volunteer site, 200 in one hit. No more are likely to risk it, neither are supplies coming in.

    Facts on the ground for any military commentary are that Ukrainian forces are surrounded with no hope of resupply. Its over.

  5. After listening to chinese government supporters talk, I have concluded that they are pro invasion. China is not neutral. Only pretending

  6. Chinese government supporters
    “Ukraine should give up”
    “The US is sending weapons to Ukraine. That will just make the war last longer”
    “The Ukraine president is bad for making them fight”
    “The Ukraine president is a puppet for the US”

    They absolutely refuse to say that Putin should stop the invasion. They will say he is mad, but that’s not the same as wanting him to stop the invasion
    They see Ukraine as a proxy for Taiwan
    They want to appear peaceful, but they aren’t actually peaceful. Wolves in sheep clothing
    Let the invaders win! Do what the abusers say so they stop! Let the murderer win! Peace! Peace!! (next invasion, same thing)

Comments are closed.