Scott75

I didn't read the whole article, but what I did read sounded quite good. Quoting the concluding remarks below: ** Getting it wrong It’s OK to be wrong sometimes. In medicine, sometimes we get ahead of ourselves. New treatments that seem so promising at first end up not panning out. The widespread prescription of oxycodone as a panacea for chronic pain in the 2000s is a good example of this. The doctors who prescribed it wanted to help their patients. We just didn’t realize oxycodone’s harms until they became common enough to see. I’d like to believe that we are people of science; that we realize when it is time to course correct. On gender medicine, the time to course correct is now. It is time for experts in our professional organizations who do not have a vested interest in perpetuating the current treatment paradigm in youth gender medicine to step up – to make truly evidence-based recommendations for standards of care. It is time to seriously ask ourselves what the safest, least harmful interventions are in youth gender medicine, and hold these interventions to rigorous, data-driven standards. It may be reasonable at this juncture to halt new starts of medical and surgical treatments for minors (puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and mastectomies and other surgeries) outside of well designed, longitudinal clinical trials. It is time to provide resources within the institutions of mainstream medicine for people who seek detransition care. It is time to question whether “gender dysphoria” as an indication in and of itself for hysterectomy, without abnormal bleeding, pain, or any other diagnosis, should continue to bypass all of the checks and balances inherent in our healthcare system for major surgery. My fellow gynecologists, we are people of science. We know right from wrong. We care about our patients. We can find the courage to do this. Dr. Karla Solheim, MD, FACOG ** Full article: https://karlasolheim.substack.com/p/its-time-for-liberal-physicians-to

I guess I should end this with something I've said a fair amount: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink."

This part: She is a known fraud and if this is the best source you have to claim the elections were fair and square, that is a joke. That's not something I said, that's something -you- said. I also note you didn't even respond to the rest of my post- typical -.-

LOL, yes, she lives in Russia. ROFL Not sure what you find so funny. In any case, did you read past my first sentence? You know, this part: ** Eva Bartlett is only -one- of the journalists I read on a fairly regular basis. In her case, I imagine at least part of her reason for deciding to live in Russia stems from the fact that it's hard for western journalists who don't agree with western mainstream narratives to earn a living, not to mention heavy handed tactics employed on some of them. A good example is that of former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter who had his passport confiscated by U.S. government officials with no explanation: https://vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/06/us-state-department-forced-ex-marine-scott-ritter-off-plane-to-russia-confiscated-his-passport/ In any case, I suspect I know why you refuse to read from sources such as Eva Bartlett, as the information she provides would contradict many beliefs that you hold. There are articles on this phenomenon, such as this one: https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/ ** Absolute balderdash. She's certainly been the subject of a smear campaign against her though.

"journalists" who lives in Russia In the case of Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett, yes, she lives in Russia. Eva Bartlett is only -one- of the journalists I read on a fairly regular basis. In her case, I imagine at least part of her reason for deciding to live in Russia stems from the fact that it's hard for western journalists who don't agree with western mainstream narratives to earn a living, not to mention heavy handed tactics employed on some of them. A good example is that of former U.N. Weapons Inspector Scott Ritter who had his passport confiscated by U.S. government officials with no explanation: https://vtforeignpolicy.com/2024/06/us-state-department-forced-ex-marine-scott-ritter-off-plane-to-russia-confiscated-his-passport/ In any case, I suspect I know why you refuse to read from sources such as Eva Bartlett, as the information she provides would contradict many beliefs that you hold. There are articles on this phenomenon, such as this one: https://today.uconn.edu/2022/08/cognitive-biases-and-brain-biology-help-explain-why-facts-dont-change-minds-2/

Sure they could have, though as I mentioned, that's not what they actually did. They -did- vote to join Russia recently though, and they've now done this. Who is this "they" that voted? The citizens of the Donbass Republics. In case you're unaware, Russia's referendum in the Donbass Republics is actually the -second- referendum held in the Donbass Republics. The first one was way back in 2014, shortly after the Euromaidan crisis. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud gets into the details in an article he wrote shortly after Russia's military operation began: ** 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. In fact, these republics did not seek to separate from Ukraine, but to have a statute of autonomy guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. Because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 which made Russian an official language. A bit as if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland. This decision causes a storm in the Russian-speaking population. This resulted in fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which began in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and a few massacres (in Odessa and Mariupol, for the most important). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ Jacques Baud is going over a lot of what happened in very little time, but the bottom line is that what started as just wanting more independence from Ukraine ended up in the Donbass Republics deciding to go their own way. There's a good article from Russian historian Evgeny Norin on one of the fierce repressions that Mr. Baud mentions that many believe played a pivotal role in the Donbass Republics' decision to become truly independent from Ukraine. It can be seen here: https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/

Absolute balderdash- from what I've read, those in the Donbass republics were eager to join Russia. Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett observed the referendum in Donetsk and wrote the following article on the matter after the fact: https://thealtworld.com/eva_bartlett/my-interview-from-donetsk-on-the-peoples-eagerness-to-vote-to-join-russia You are reading Russian propagandists. No, I'm reading from journalists who were actually on the ground during the referendum in Donetsk as to whether or not to join Russia. I imagine you never even clicked on the link above, so I'll quote a bit of it for you and anyone interested in knowing what actually happened in Donetsk during the referendum: ** Interview I did on RT yesterday, after observing the DPR referendum (from September 23-27) on whether to join Russia. During that time, I visited areas where voting was occurring in homes/apartments to lessen the opportunity for Ukraine to shell large crowds. Wherever I went–central Donetsk, hard-hit northern & western Donetsk, hard-hit Gorlovka, Mariupol, I saw relaxed people keen to vote (as opposed to Western BS narrative about guns to their heads). [snip] First scenes of voting in the referendum yesterday, in the Donetsk People’s Republic. “Yes! Of course, yes!” **Twitter thread with numerous clips of voting over the five day period ** Full article: https://thealtworld.com/eva_bartlett/my-interview-from-donetsk-on-the-peoples-eagerness-to-vote-to-join-russia

Absolute balderdash- from what I've read, those in the Donbass republics were eager to join Russia. Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett observed the referendum in Donetsk and wrote the following article on the matter after the fact: https://thealtworld.com/eva_bartlett/my-interview-from-donetsk-on-the-peoples-eagerness-to-vote-to-join-russia

Sure they could have, though as I mentioned, that's not what they actually did. They -did- vote to join Russia recently though, and they've now done this.

More spam... No, it's relevant information that you keep on ignoring. As the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink -.- Originally, they actually just wanted more autonomy, which is something you'd know if you'd actually bothered to read the material I'd quoted from Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud. For anyone who's interested in learning the details, the article can be seen here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ Anyway, the far right Ukrainian government that replaced Viktor Yanukovych's government had no intention of trying to accomodate them. What's more, some people in this group participated in things such as the Odessa massacre which -really- got eastern Ukrainians inflamed. In case you're unaware of this event, Russian historian Evgeny Norin wrote a good article on the subject, which can be seen here: https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/

It's disinformation for anyone to believe those forces were not Russian-backed, if not outright Russian troops themselves. To date, I've seen no hard evidence that Russia backed the Donbass rebels with any weapons at all. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud, who was in Ukraine during this period of time, makes this quite clear: ** In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military. The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords. But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements… ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Once again... it was a Russian-backed movement for Eastern Ukraine to be taken by separatists to begin with. You're mistaken- the Donbass Republics actually held a referendum on gaining more independence from Ukraine against Putin's advice, as documented by former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud: ** 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. In fact, these republics did not seek to separate from Ukraine, but to have a statute of autonomy guaranteeing them the use of the Russian language as an official language. Because the first legislative act of the new government resulting from the overthrow of President Yanukovych, was the abolition, on February 23, 2014, of the Kivalov-Kolesnichenko law of 2012 which made Russian an official language. A bit as if putschists decided that French and Italian would no longer be official languages in Switzerland. This decision causes a storm in the Russian-speaking population. This resulted in fierce repression against the Russian-speaking regions (Odessa, Dnepropetrovsk, Kharkov, Lugansk and Donetsk) which began in February 2014 and led to a militarization of the situation and a few massacres (in Odessa and Mariupol, for the most important). At the end of summer 2014, only the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Lugansk remained. ** It was only at this stage that Eastern Ukrainins realized that the only way they could preserve their Russian language was to fight for it. Continuing from Mr. Baud's article: ** At this stage, too rigid and stuck in a doctrinaire approach to the operational art, the Ukrainian staffs suffered the enemy without succeeding in imposing themselves. Examination of the course of the fighting in 2014-2016 in the Donbass shows that the Ukrainian general staff systematically and mechanically applied the same operational plans. However, the war waged by the autonomists was then very close to what we observed in the Sahel: very mobile operations carried out with light means. With a more flexible and less doctrinaire approach, the rebels were able to exploit the inertia of the Ukrainian forces to “trap” them repeatedly. In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military. The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords. But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements… It is essential to recall here that the Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements provided for neither the separation nor the independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Accords (they are very, very, very few) will find that it is written in full that the status of the republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the republics, for an internal solution in Ukraine . This is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their application while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter for Ukraine. On the other side, the Westerners – led by France – systematically tried to replace the Minsk Accords with the “Normandy format”, which brought Russians and Ukrainians face to face. However, let us remember, there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before February 23-24, 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. Thus, the US intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in Donbass. In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. It was an even comparable to that of the Swiss going to fight in Bosnia during the weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who are going to fight in Ukraine today. The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, Ukraine’s chief military prosecutor Anatoly Matios said that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from disease, 318 from traffic accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisoning (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of safety rules, 228 from murder and 615 from suicide. In fact, the army is undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoys the support of the population. According to a UK Home Office report , when reservists were called up in March-April 2014, 70% did not show up for the first session, 80% for the second, 90% for the third and 95% for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of callers did not show up during the “ Autumn 2017 ” callback campaign. This does not include suicides and desertions(often for the benefit of the autonomists) which reach up to 30% of the workforce in the ATO zone. Young Ukrainians refuse to go and fight in the Donbass and prefer emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the country’s demographic deficit. The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help it make its armed forces more “attractive”. Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program intended to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But it’s a long process and the Ukrainians want to go quickly. Thus, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. They are essentially made up of foreign mercenaries, often far-right activists. As of 2020, they constitute around 40% of Ukraine’s forces and number around 102,000 men according to Reuters . They are armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There are more than 19 nationalities – including Swiss. Western countries have therefore clearly created and supported Ukrainian far-right militias . In October 2021, the Jerusalem Post sounded the alarm by denouncing the Centuria project . These militias have been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if we can discuss the term “Nazi”, the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic. Their anti-Semitism is more cultural than political, which is why the adjective “Nazi” is not really appropriate. Their hatred of the Jew comes from the great famines of the years 1920-1930 in Ukraine, resulting from the confiscation of crops by Stalin in order to finance the modernization of the Red Army. However, this genocide – known in Ukraine under the name of Holodomor – was perpetrated by the NKVD (ancestor of the KGB) whose upper echelons of leadership were mainly composed of Jews. That is why, today, Ukrainian extremists are asking Israel to apologize for the crimes of communism , as the Jerusalem Post reports . We are therefore a long way from a “ rewriting of history ” by Vladimir Putin. These militias, stemming from the far-right groups that led the Euromaidan revolution in 2014, are made up of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of that of the 2nd SS Das Reich Panzer Division , which is the object of real veneration in Ukraine, for having liberated Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before to perpetrate the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane in 1944, in France. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

Ahh appeasement has worked so well throughout history. I think we can agree that it has not. Putin himself now says that he should have started his military operation in Ukraine sooner, instead of allowing the western Ukrainian army to kill eastern Ukrainian Russian speakers for 8 years first: https://www.bbc.com/news/live/cpw2yw0nr7qt It stands to reason, considering what the German Chancellor at the time of the Minsk Agreements had to say as to her motivation to support them: https://www.donbass-insider.com/2022/12/10/angela-merkel-admits-that-the-minsk-agreements-were-only-signed-to-give-ukraine-time/

Just more lies. No, it's the truth, you've just been conditioned to think otherwise, probably by western mainstream media sources. There's a great documentary that gets into the terrible things that the western Ukrainian army did to eastern Ukrainians for 8 years that can be seen here:

So it has: https://www.rferl.org/a/ukraine-attack-key-bridge-russia-crimea-kerch/33432943.html When will Ukraine and its western allies learn that such provocations are only making the Ukraine war worse :-/.