Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

phoenyx75's Achievements


Apprentice (3/14)

  • Collaborator
  • Conversation Starter
  • One Month Later
  • Reacting Well Rare
  • Week One Done

Recent Badges



  1. I'd be one such person. Of the statesmen you mentioned, I've definitely been reading about Orban's proposal. He actually went to Russia to discuss it with Putin. An excerpt from their meeting: ** The Russian president has reiterated Moscow’s readiness to resolve the hostility through negotiations. The Ukrainian leadership, however, appears to be still incapable of abandoning its idea of waging a war “until the end,” Putin noted. Moscow is seeking to reach lasting, sustainable peace rather than opting for a temporary ceasefire or a “frozen conflict” of any sort, the Russian president warned. There should not be a “ceasefire or some kind of pause that the Kiev regime could use to recover losses, regroup, and rearm. Russia is in favor of a complete and final end to the conflict,” he stressed. ** Full article: https://www.rt.com/russia/600527-orban-putin-ukraine-conflict/ I don't think that'd work at all. The creation of Canada (as opposed to the indigenous people before its creation) began with settlers from England and France. Also, when the American Civil War ended with the American rebels winning, many Americans who were loyal to the crown (called loyalists) went to Canada as well. Ukraine certainly has people who have deep ties to Russia, but they are primarily in the Eastern part of Ukraine, which Russia has already taken over for the most part. I think the best solution at this point would probably be that Ukraine agrees to give up all or at least most of the territories that Russia has taken and also agrees to not join NATO for starters. I think even this is far from happening at the moment, but it seems like the most likely way to achieve peace. I'd say it was Ukraine's treachery, with the backing of the U.S. and other NATO countries, that precipitated Russia's military intervention to begin with. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud wrote an article that I think goes into great detail as to what really happened prior to Russia's intervention: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/
  2. 47 minutes is too long for you? That's not even the length of a film, let alone a tv series. Believe it or not, employed people do watch both movies and even (gasp!) tv series. Anyway, to each their own.
  3. Crimea returned to Russia 10 years ago: https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/ As to the new parts of Ukraine that Russia has annexed since its military operation started in 2022, I can't see them giving most if not all of that up. Since right now, that's about all the land they have, barring a bit of a zone they are literally calling a buffer zone in the north. Which is why I think the best case scenario is that a peace agreement is reached wherein they keep most of what they have now. I'm thinking they may be amenable to giving up the buffer zone. I think the only reason they took it to begin with was because Ukraine was attacking the old Russian territory above it.
  4. I think the best case scenario at this point is that Ukraine is divided along the current lines of control. Reuters recently put out an article a few days ago with sources saying that Putin would be amenable to this solution: https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/putin-wants-ukraine-ceasefire-current-frontlines-sources-say-2024-05-24/ I think the only alternative is a continuation of the war where Ukraine loses even more territory and possibly even a nuclear escalation.
  5. Ok granted. But that suggests myata is rather simple with his analysis. That the Ukraine war is actually "us verses them". It is not. Ah, on that we agree completely. I imagine it's the usual reasons: Money, power, things of that nature. It reminds me of a line the Oracle said in Matrix Reloaded: "What do all men with power want? More power." I'm not a fan of Trump, but I think there's plenty of merit in the fact that Biden's son and Biden, aka the "big guy" have profited from their connections in Ukraine and elsewhere.
  6. Here's an article from almost 2 years ago from Scheerpost, founded by award-winning journalist Robert Scheer: https://scheerpost.com/2022/08/31/were-being-trained-to-worry-about-russian-propaganda-while-drowning-in-us-propaganda/
  7. Lol...typical denial of Tweenkies who don't like being exposed as liars. I think it's possible that myata actually believes that it's "Russian bullshit", as they say, but I also think we can agree that they're just following the western mainstream script of discounting any narrative that goes against the western mainstream narrative.
  8. It seems whenever anyone dares to say anything that goes against the western mainstream narrative, it's labelled as Russian propaganda or Russian [insert slur here]. The fact remains, however, that former Swiss Intelligence officer is Jacques Baud is Swiss, not Russian, and actually played a part in both arming Ukraine's military prior to Russia's military intervention, as well as examining Poland's claims that Russia helped Ukraine's rebels militarily prior to February 24, 2022 and finding no evidence to back them up.
  9. I strongly suspect that Russia's decision to intervene in the Ukrainian civil war over 2 years ago was the right one. I know this view is definitely not the norm in western societies, so I decided to start a thread that references perhaps the best article I've ever seen that describes a lot of the lead up to Russia's intervention. It's here:
  10. The article referenced below was translated to English over 2 years ago, but I still think it's one of the best articles to explain the immediate lead up to Russia's decision to intervene in the civil war in Ukraine that started 8 years before, back in 2014. I usually keep the title of an article intact in a thread, but there's been some pushback as to whether he was really a "Former NATO Military Analyst", so I decided it'd be better to simply title him a former Swiss Intelligence Officer. Alright, with that said, here is the article in question: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ I know some people are not keen on clicking on links, so I thought I'd quote some parts of his article. First, the introduction to his translated article: ** April 9, 2022 Jacques Baud, a NATO expert, denounces western coverage of the Ukraine invasion. By Jacques Baud / French Intelligence Research Center PART ONE: ON THE ROAD TO WAR For years, from Mali to Afghanistan, I worked for peace and risked my life for it. It is therefore not a question of justifying the war, but of understanding what led us to it. I note that the “experts” who take turns on the television sets analyze the situation based on dubious information, most often hypotheses turned into facts, and therefore we no longer manage to understand what is happening. That’s how you create panic. The problem is not so much who is right in this conflict, but how our leaders make their decisions. Let’s try to examine the roots of the conflict. It starts with those who for the past eight years have been talking to us about “separatists” or “independence” from the Donbass. It’s wrong. The referendums conducted by the two self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk in May 2014 were not ” independence ” (независимость) referendums , as some unscrupulous journalists claimed , but ” self-determination ” or ” autonomy (самостоятельность). The term “pro-Russian” suggests that Russia was a party to the conflict, which was not the case, and the term “Russian speakers” would have been more honest. Moreover, these referendums were conducted against the advice of Vladimir Putin. ** There is a -lot- more interesting information in this article. I'll include just 2 more paragraphs that's around halfway through his article where he writes about what was happening in Ukraine a week before Russia's intervention: ** In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers. from the Donbass being run over. If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “ Responsibility To Protect ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21. **
  11. I can't speak for Jesus, but I personally don't think that money is intrinsically evil. I -do- believe that private banks creating most of the money through central banks is not a good thing. I personally think that the best documentary I've seen that explains why is this one:
  12. I'm not sure if dark matter exists, but as you pointed out, scientists acknowledge that it may not exist. There are other mainstream things that certainly -claim- to be backed by science, such as virology, but in that particular case, I'd say that virology simply isn't backed up by science. Several doctors (or former doctors, medical boards tend to take away the licenses of doctors who dare to question and/or disagree with virology in public) wrote and signed a statement as to why they no longer believe in biological viruses here: https://drsambailey.com/resources/settling-the-virus-debate/ I do believe that evolution is real though. I think that evolutionary biological Richard Dawkins has made some very good arguments as to why it's real. I personally read and really liked his first book which deals extensively with evolution called The Selfish Gene. Wikipedia has a page on it here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene Up until the 60s, evolutionary theories focused on the group or the individual. Wikipedia explains: ** Dawkins uses the term "selfish gene" as a way of expressing the gene-centred view of evolution (as opposed to the views focused on the organism and the group), popularising ideas developed during the 1960s by W. D. Hamilton and others. From the gene-centred view, it follows that the more two individuals are genetically related, the more sense (at the level of the genes) it makes for them to behave cooperatively with each other. **
  13. I disagree. I think that physicist Sabine Hossenfelder has a good explanation as to why we're deterministic here:
  14. I think that Putin was pretty clear as to why Russia intervened in Russia in February 24, 2022. Putin's speech on the day of his intervention brings up 2 points- the deplorable condition of the Donbass region in Ukraine and the national security of Russia. He actually brings both issues back to back. Quoting from it: ** This brings me to the situation in Donbass. We can see that the forces that staged the coup in Ukraine in 2014 have seized power, are keeping it with the help of ornamental election procedures and have abandoned the path of a peaceful conflict settlement. For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means. Everything was in vain. As I said in my previous address, you cannot look without compassion at what is happening there. It became impossible to tolerate it. We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. It is their aspirations, the feelings and pain of these people that were the main motivating force behind our decision to recognise the independence of the Donbass people’s republics. I would like to additionally emphasise the following. Focused on their own goals, the leading NATO countries are supporting the far-right nationalists and neo-Nazis in Ukraine, those who will never forgive the people of Crimea and Sevastopol for freely making a choice to reunite with Russia. They will undoubtedly try to bring war to Crimea just as they have done in Donbass, to kill innocent people just as members of the punitive units of Ukrainian nationalists and Hitler’s accomplices did during the Great Patriotic War. They have also openly laid claim to several other Russian regions. If we look at the sequence of events and the incoming reports, the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time. They are getting ready and waiting for the right moment. Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons. We will not let this happen. ** Full transcript: https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/transcript-vladimir-putin-s-televised-address-on-ukraine-1.1728035 For those who were watching, Zelensky did in fact state that he was thinking about getting nuclear weapons prior to Russia's military intervention. Here's an article from 2021 that points this out: https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2021/4/16/ukraine-may-seek-nuclear-weapons-if-left-out-of-nato-diplomat I previously found an article wherein Putin commented on this stance of Ukraine just a bit before his intervention in Ukraine as well. That being said, based on what I read from former Swiss Intelligence officer Jacques Baud, this wasn't the last straw that got Putin to decide to intervene in Ukraine- the last straw was Ukraine's renewed military assault on the Donbass region. Here's Jacques Baud's article that brings that up: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/
  15. Agreed. I've actually been against all vaccines for a while, but perhaps in part because of the massive amount of covid vaccines that have been given, it's become ever clearer how bad the covid vaccines have been for people.
  • Create New...