[imgr8ness]

You do realize Russia is spreading misinformation on the war. So for you to throw around his speeches as actually fact makes you a sheep.

Misinformation is not limited to Russia. If you are aware of misinformation being a tool then you must also realize ALL countries engage in this tactic.

As far as my reference to Putin's speeches, it was limited to simply observing that he is an intelligent man, I made no reference to the veracity of his speech content.

It seems as though you read my comment and interpreted it incorrectly, most likely due to your fervent anti-Russia stance.

It's simply in poor taste to even play devil's advocate here. There's definitely misinformation, but they're just attacking civilians. Casualties are always a given when it comes to conflict, but they aren't actually targeting military threats. It's one thing to be edgy, but you're advocating war crimes at this point.

'...you're advocating war crimes at this point.'

It appears you've drawn a baseless conclusion from my statement, I strongly disagree with your accusation that I'm advocating war crimes.

I simply made the point that you can't believe the media, as from what I observed in comments online, people were all too ready to believe anything written about Russia without hesitation.

I can understand to a point since seeing pictures of bombing aftermath can stoke your emotions however, emotional manipulation is exactly why propaganda can be very effective.

Bottom line is, none of us can know with certainty that the pictures or video we're seeing is legitimate. If you've had more than a cursory glance online, you'll see a number of high profile stories about debunked footage or photos about this war.

The only thing we know for certain is that Russia invaded Ukraine, everything else is prone to fabrication in one way or another.

Let me ask you a question, would you go to the RT News site, read the reports there and believe what you read? I'm going to assume the answer is no, since you are clearly anti-Russian. And most likely you wouldn't believe what they write because it would be in their interests to lie about the war and paint Ukraine in a bad light, yes?

Then why would you believe western media unconditionally? It also would be in their interests to lie about the war and cast Russia in the worst light possible, just at Russia would about Ukraine.

The story from the UN site you posted is very telling and is a great example of the point I'm making. From the story...

"Civilians are being killed and maimed in what appear to be indiscriminate attacks..."

In short, they don't know if the attacks were deliberate or accidental. If they don't know that, then they also don't know who did it. The possibilities are:
1 - Russia deliberately targets and bombs defenceless civilians (my opinion: highly unlikely). Whether you like to admit it or not, Russians are people too.
2 - Russia accidentally hits civilians during exchange of fire (my opinion: highly likely). However, the point I need to make here is that Ukraine military is equally responsible in this circumstance because they are placing themselves amongst civilians while engaging with Russia. This is an old tactic that has been used many times over in wars, its not supposed to be used but in reality it is.

Have you asked yourself why would a military with a finite amount of resources that are trying to achieve an objective to dominate an opposing military force, waste their time and resources on areas which do not contribute to that outcome?

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

That being the case, you would have to also hold Ukraine partially responsible for their own civilians being killed.

Just to make it crystal clear for you, I rarely give my undying and unconditional support to anything, so you can be assured that I am not pro-Russian and certainly not pro-Ukraine.

I am simply a person that values truth and knows that the world is full of people that lie about or conceal the truth for a variety of reasons. My advice to you is not to let your emotions dictate what you believe to be true.

[Dismas]

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving. A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

would you go to the RT News site, read the reports there and believe what you read?

State-funded, state-controlled.

[imgr8ness]

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

would you go to the RT News site, read the reports there and believe what you read?

State-funded, state-controlled.

Of course RT News is state-funded, state-controlled, which is my entire point. You wouldn't read what they post on that site because its in their interests to make any opposition look as bad as possible.

So then, why would you believe western media if they too have motivation to make Russia look as bad as possible? Its two sides of the same coin, if you understand that metaphor.

Perhaps you have a reasonable justification for applying your values inconsistently, if so, then I am very interested to know how you can justify acting so loosely with your moral principles.

---

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

'A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius.'

Firstly, for me to believe this, I would have to place my trust in you, an anonymous stranger on the internet to tell me the truth. For all I know, you could be making this up to support your point.

Secondly, even IF you have a good friend in the Ukraine who told you that, I would have to also place my trust in your friends word, who is also an anonymous stranger. That would be stupid and naive of me to do that.

Lastly, even IF your 'friend' exists and you genuinely believe them, and they genuinely believe there were no military units within 20mi radius, then we would all have to believe that your friend is somehow privy to intelligence or communications regarding Russian military movements and not simply going by what he sees outside his bedroom window.

Either way, what you're suggesting is extremely unlikely.

[Boudica]

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

would you go to the RT News site, read the reports there and believe what you read?

State-funded, state-controlled.

Of course RT News is state-funded, state-controlled, which is my entire point. You wouldn't read what they post on that site because its in their interests to make any opposition look as bad as possible.

So then, why would you believe western media if they too have motivation to make Russia look as bad as possible? Its two sides of the same coin, if you understand that metaphor.

Perhaps you have a reasonable justification for applying your values inconsistently, if so, then I am very interested to know how you can justify acting so loosely with your moral principles.

---

In other words, if there is bombing or shelling in civilian areas then quite simply, there must be Ukrainian military operating in those areas.

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

'A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius.'

Firstly, for me to believe this, I would have to place my trust in you, an anonymous stranger on the internet to tell me the truth. For all I know, you could be making this up to support your point.

Secondly, even IF you have a good friend in the Ukraine who told you that, I would have to also place my trust in your friends word, who is also an anonymous stranger. That would be stupid and naive of me to do that.

Lastly, even IF your 'friend' exists and you genuinely believe them, and they genuinely believe there were no military units within 20mi radius, then we would all have to believe that your friend is somehow privy to intelligence or communications regarding Russian military movements and not simply going by what he sees outside his bedroom window.

Either way, what you're suggesting is extremely unlikely.

So, if I'm understanding correctly: you're personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?

This doesn't really make sense to me. I completely understand not trusting information from mainstream media. I completely understand wanting to find the truth. However, I personally believe that you can get closer to the truth by spending time yourself conducting your own research. You won't find everything, of course, but you won't find nothing.

To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.

Would this not mean Russian or Western media has equal chances of showing truth. Almost like the Ukrainian war is an example Schrodinger's cat: Russia might be intentionally hitting civilians, or it might not.

How can you make an assumption either way if you have no information?

I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims. I do find Western sources at least try to provide evidence of what they're saying. However I've yet to see the equivalent for Russian sources (of course my access is limited to what google translate can do for me).

[imgr8ness]

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.


State-funded, state-controlled.

Of course RT News is state-funded, state-controlled, which is my entire point. You wouldn't read what they post on that site because its in their interests to make any opposition look as bad as possible.

So then, why would you believe western media if they too have motivation to make Russia look as bad as possible? Its two sides of the same coin, if you understand that metaphor.

Perhaps you have a reasonable justification for applying your values inconsistently, if so, then I am very interested to know how you can justify acting so loosely with your moral principles.

---

Russia doesn't have bad hardware, and it's no coincidence all the tech/energy companies are leaving.  A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius. Their building was bombed out. If you can't place your payload within 20mi of where you're aiming, then you're doing it wrong.

'A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius.'

Firstly, for me to believe this, I would have to place my trust in you, an anonymous stranger on the internet to tell me the truth. For all I know, you could be making this up to support your point.

Secondly, even IF you have a good friend in the Ukraine who told you that, I would have to also place my trust in your friends word, who is also an anonymous stranger. That would be stupid and naive of me to do that.

Lastly, even IF your 'friend' exists and you genuinely believe them, and they genuinely believe there were no military units within 20mi radius, then we would all have to believe that your friend is somehow privy to intelligence or communications regarding Russian military movements and not simply going by what he sees outside his bedroom window.

Either way, what you're suggesting is extremely unlikely.

So, if I'm understanding correctly: you're personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?

This doesn't really make sense to me. I completely understand not trusting information from mainstream media. I completely understand wanting to find the truth. However, I personally believe that you can get closer to the truth by spending time yourself conducting your own research. You won't find everything, of course, but you won't find nothing.

To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.

Would this not mean Russian or Western media has equal chances of showing truth. Almost like the Ukrainian war is an example Schrodinger's cat: Russia might be intentionally hitting civilians, or it might not.

How can you make an assumption either way if you have no information?

I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims. I do find Western sources at least try to provide evidence of what they're saying. However I've yet to see the equivalent for Russian sources (of course my access is limited to what google translate can do for me).

'To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not outright dismissing any information, however I'm not outright believing it either. Usually the truth sits somewhere in the middle.

From my perspective, you are making the claim that Russia is deliberately bombing or shelling Ukrainian citizens. Russia says it isn't. From your statements, its clear you believe Russia is and the only information you have to go on is what the western media tells you.
So that is where I came in to merely make the point that you are acting with bias. Whatever you may think of Russia, you still should not undermine your own principles of truth just because you oppose someone or something.

'I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims.'

That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before.

'...you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I would say that is quite accurate. But to clarify, I form a viewpoint cautiously based on currently known information but I am always questioning and if new information comes to light then I revise my viewpoint.

'...your personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?'

Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars.

Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection.

[Boudica]

Of course RT News is state-funded, state-controlled, which is my entire point. You wouldn't read what they post on that site because its in their interests to make any opposition look as bad as possible.

So then, why would you believe western media if they too have motivation to make Russia look as bad as possible? Its two sides of the same coin, if you understand that metaphor.

Perhaps you have a reasonable justification for applying your values inconsistently, if so, then I am very interested to know how you can justify acting so loosely with your moral principles.

---

'A good friend was in proximity to Kharkiv, with no military assets within a 20mi radius.'

Firstly, for me to believe this, I would have to place my trust in you, an anonymous stranger on the internet to tell me the truth. For all I know, you could be making this up to support your point.

Secondly, even IF you have a good friend in the Ukraine who told you that, I would have to also place my trust in your friends word, who is also an anonymous stranger. That would be stupid and naive of me to do that.

Lastly, even IF your 'friend' exists and you genuinely believe them, and they genuinely believe there were no military units within 20mi radius, then we would all have to believe that your friend is somehow privy to intelligence or communications regarding Russian military movements and not simply going by what he sees outside his bedroom window.

Either way, what you're suggesting is extremely unlikely.

So, if I'm understanding correctly: you're personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?

This doesn't really make sense to me. I completely understand not trusting information from mainstream media. I completely understand wanting to find the truth. However, I personally believe that you can get closer to the truth by spending time yourself conducting your own research. You won't find everything, of course, but you won't find nothing.

To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.

Would this not mean Russian or Western media has equal chances of showing truth. Almost like the Ukrainian war is an example Schrodinger's cat: Russia might be intentionally hitting civilians, or it might not.

How can you make an assumption either way if you have no information?

I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims. I do find Western sources at least try to provide evidence of what they're saying. However I've yet to see the equivalent for Russian sources (of course my access is limited to what google translate can do for me).

'To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not outright dismissing any information, however I'm not outright believing it either. Usually the truth sits somewhere in the middle.

From my perspective, you are making the claim that Russia is deliberately bombing or shelling Ukrainian citizens. Russia says it isn't. From your statements, its clear you believe Russia is and the only information you have to go on is what the western media tells you.
So that is where I came in to merely make the point that you are acting with bias. Whatever you may think of Russia, you still should not undermine your own principles of truth just because you oppose someone or something.

'I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims.'

That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before.

'...you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I would say that is quite accurate. But to clarify, I form a viewpoint cautiously based on currently known information but I am always questioning and if new information comes to light then I revise my viewpoint.

'...your personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?'

Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars.

Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection.

See, here you've assumed I use only western media to make my decisions. I thought I made it obvious that I am as skeptical as anyone about what the media shows or doesn't show.
Of course, that doesn't mean I have no bias. We're human and all subject to bias.

"That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before."
Governments do lie. And do have their own agendas. However, when there are governments from outside the western world also calling Putin a War Criminal... that's a lot of agendas that are suddenly aligning a little too perfectly for it to be merely lies and agendas from the west. The scale of global response to this is too large for it to be solely western agenda or propaganda.

Sometimes the simpler answer, is the most likely: Putin has committed war crimes.
I have also heard the Ukraine may have committed war crimes.

"Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars."
That's fair. I feel similarly in that my viewpoint will change based on new evidence/information coming to light.

"Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection."
Actually, this is seriously untrue. There has been many a protest from general public about western involvement and conduct in those wars. I'd like to believe you'd be pleasantly surprised by how many of the general public are against those wars.

[theWilled]

Some believed that we could somehow legally defend Ukraine by using our military forces in Ukrainian airspace. I absolutely do not know what it will do if we are directly involved in the war, I do not understand.

[imgr8ness]

So, if I'm understanding correctly: you're personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?

This doesn't really make sense to me. I completely understand not trusting information from mainstream media. I completely understand wanting to find the truth. However, I personally believe that you can get closer to the truth by spending time yourself conducting your own research. You won't find everything, of course, but you won't find nothing.

To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.

Would this not mean Russian or Western media has equal chances of showing truth. Almost like the Ukrainian war is an example Schrodinger's cat: Russia might be intentionally hitting civilians, or it might not.

How can you make an assumption either way if you have no information?

I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims. I do find Western sources at least try to provide evidence of what they're saying. However I've yet to see the equivalent for Russian sources (of course my access is limited to what google translate can do for me).

'To dismiss all information because you can't verify it face to face, would make one very naive. This would mean you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I think you misunderstand me, I'm not outright dismissing any information, however I'm not outright believing it either. Usually the truth sits somewhere in the middle.

From my perspective, you are making the claim that Russia is deliberately bombing or shelling Ukrainian citizens. Russia says it isn't. From your statements, its clear you believe Russia is and the only information you have to go on is what the western media tells you.
So that is where I came in to merely make the point that you are acting with bias. Whatever you may think of Russia, you still should not undermine your own principles of truth just because you oppose someone or something.

'I truly believe the Western world would not have taken the stance of claiming war crimes, if there were no way to substantiate those claims.'

That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before.

'...you couldn't form any viewpoint as you have literally no information, because you trust no information.'

I would say that is quite accurate. But to clarify, I form a viewpoint cautiously based on currently known information but I am always questioning and if new information comes to light then I revise my viewpoint.

'...your personal stance isn't in favour of either side, but you choose to believe Russia isn't targeting civilians?'

Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars.

Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection.

See, here you've assumed I use only western media to make my decisions. I thought I made it obvious that I am as skeptical as anyone about what the media shows or doesn't show.
Of course, that doesn't mean I have no bias. We're human and all subject to bias.

"That basis of that view can only be held if western governments always told the truth and surely even you admit no government is ever completely honest. That being said, my point here is that governments lie to further their own agenda. When there are wars, the first casualty is truth, you've probably heard that phrase before."
Governments do lie. And do have their own agendas. However, when there are governments from outside the western world also calling Putin a War Criminal... that's a lot of agendas that are suddenly aligning a little too perfectly for it to be merely lies and agendas from the west. The scale of global response to this is too large for it to be solely western agenda or propaganda.

Sometimes the simpler answer, is the most likely: Putin has committed war crimes.
I have also heard the Ukraine may have committed war crimes.

"Yes of course. No one has incontrovertible proof. All we have is a lot of western media writing reports and posting sad pictures from a war. That in itself is not proof of the actual charges they levy against Russia and holds about as much weight as gossip.

All we know for sure is that Russia did in fact invade Ukraine. That is all. The reasons have been made clear by Putin so its just a matter of whether or not you agree with those reasons.

And one final point I'd like to make, I find it incredibly hypocritical of the US and the western world in general to call Putin a war criminal when the US has killed countless civilians in the middle east in illegal wars."
That's fair. I feel similarly in that my viewpoint will change based on new evidence/information coming to light.

"Unfortunately the general public doesn't seem capable of such introspection and reflection."
Actually, this is seriously untrue. There has been many a protest from general public about western involvement and conduct in those wars. I'd like to believe you'd be pleasantly surprised by how many of the general public are against those wars.

'Governments do lie. And do have their own agendas. However, when there are governments from outside the western world also calling Putin a War Criminal... that's a lot of agendas that are suddenly aligning a little too perfectly for it to be merely lies and agendas from the west.'

I disagree. It would only seem to be 'too perfect' for many countries agenda's to align but that is only a rudimentary assessment, you need to look deeper as its quite easy to see why that would be the case. Not many countries in this world are truly independent, smaller or less powerful countries align themselves with more powerful countries for self-preservation, protection from others, financial benefits etc.
So, when you take those points into account, its easy to see why many countries would side with the US. Its not a simple equation of 'Russia is evil and must be crushed', there are many considerations at play for many countries.
For example, Hungary is clearly not taking Ukraines side because they have to think about the stability of their own country. A quote from a news story:

'...Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto said that his country would not support anti-Russia sanctions which would cause harm to its own interests, including the penalties targeting Russian gas and oil. He also reiterated that Hungary was against any proposals involving sending NATO soldiers to Ukraine or creating a no-fly zone over the country, explaining that such actions would raise the risk of a larger-scale war.
Though the Hungarian government has condemned Moscow’s attack on Ukraine and supported some sanctions, it has consistently defended its wish to “stay out” of the conflict and has refused to join other countries in sending weapons to Ukraine.' (https://www.rt.com/russia/552496-ukraine...criticism/)

'There has been many a protest from general public about western involvement and conduct in those wars.'

Sure, there is always a handful of people who protest but it doesn't reflect the broader society, they are usually just the loudest mouths.

'I feel similarly in that my viewpoint will change based on new evidence/information coming to light.'

Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of the various news outlets, none of which can be relied upon to tell the whole truth or represent it accurately. Even if we were on the ground in Ukraine, you would still not be able to form an accurate picture of what is going on.
We could be fed an entire narrative that is completely fictitious but we would never truly know. Ever seen the movie 'Wag the Dog'? In it, the President is caught in a controversial situation so to deflect from that, his staff contacts a Hollywood producer and gets him to create a fictional war in Albania, complete with a theme song and fake film footage of a sympathy arousing orphan.

Its not about believing everything Russia says, its about NOT believing everything the US says. Just look at all the lies, death and destruction that the US has wrought upon the world just in the last few decades.

I think we can all feel sympathy for innocent civilians being harmed or killed, but it is this very human emotion that is used against us to fabricate consent to war.

To clarify, you would of heard news stories that Russia bombed a hospital in Mariupol but do you really believe that Russia would bomb a civilian hospital for no reason other than to kill women and babies? Come on, this isn't a Hollywood movie, the world is not black and white, good vs evil.
If you ask Ukraine, they say Russia is evil and deliberately killed women and children then sat back laughing maniacally while stroking their evil cat.
But if you ask Russia, they say that the hospital building had for days been under the control of ultra-radical Ukrainian forces.

What do you think is more likely? Even the pictures of injured women and even a pregnant woman on a stretcher could of been staged. Remember, its a war and if you are willing to kill the enemy, then you wouldn't even hesitate to lie about them.

Ever heard the euphemism 'Hearts and minds'? That is exactly what the media is trying to do, win the hearts and minds of the general public so that politicians can get the support they need to enter or continue wars. Don't fall for it.

[ConcernedCitizen]

In a world of disinformation/COINTELPRO, you can't trust anything. I only trust what is verifiable and irrefutable, like Jeffrey Epstein for instance, not killing himself. This war has taken a huge toll on many nations, not just the two fighting it. Russia, on the one hand, has a smaller military but larger nuclear arsenal, which is always at low-ready. Fortunately, neither countries have violated the Geneva Convention in a verifiable way or there would be huge consequences for all of us, across the planet. On the other hand, the leader of Ukraine is actually willing to go out and fight alongside his infantrymen, a task not undertaken by some of history's greatest leaders. Generals, sure. But not presidents or monarchs of the past.

The world is full of propaganda and you will get more truth by shutting off your television and radio and turning on your common sense.

[imgr8ness]

In a world of disinformation/COINTELPRO, you can't trust anything. I only trust what is verifiable and irrefutable, like Jeffrey Epstein for instance, not killing himself. This war has taken a huge toll on many nations, not just the two fighting it. Russia, on the one hand, has a smaller military but larger nuclear arsenal, which is always at low-ready. Fortunately, neither countries have violated the Geneva Convention in a verifiable way or there would be huge consequences for all of us, across the planet. On the other hand, the leader of Ukraine is actually willing to go out and fight alongside his infantrymen, a task not undertaken by some of history's greatest leaders. Generals, sure. But not presidents or monarchs of the past.

The world is full of propaganda and you will get more truth by shutting off your television and radio and turning on your common sense.

'...you can't trust anything. I only trust what is verifiable and irrefutable...'

On that I can completely agree.

'On the other hand, the leader of Ukraine is actually willing to go out and fight alongside his infantrymen, a task not undertaken by some of history's greatest leaders.'

On its face value, that may seem like a courageous thing to do but knowing as much about Zelensky as such, I say its more a reflection of his stupidity. After all, he is an actor/comedian who had no prior political experience before becoming president and it certainly shows. Not to mention, a president should not be fighting on the ground, that is not the job description.