Scott75

https://brilliantio.com/what-are-prompts-in-writing/ When it comes to AI, I'm more interested in a certain substacker's custom ChatGPT AI called Ptolemy. I really liked these articles: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/ptolemy-a-socratic-dialogue I think my favourite so far is this one of Ptolemy with another custom AI, Centurion: https://treeofwoe.substack.com/p/a-meeting-of-minds-or-a-mindless I also really liked the creator of Centurion AI's dialogue with Ptolemy: https://substack.com/@ivanthrone/p-164131189

You asserted this, for sure... I did more than that, I provided evidence for my assertion. But I see that you have provided a non Moscow Times source, so let's get into it... At least with NPR, there's no illusion that its financing isn't western. I see that this article is also more honest as well, pointing out that Girkin had nothing to do with the Russian government's moves. Last I heard, he was languishing in a Russian prison. Sure, Girkin played a role in organizing the resistance after Euromaidan, but the -reason- eastern Ukraine started aligning itself more closely to Russia in 2014 was because of what happened -during- Euromaidan, as well as a few other events, such as the Odessa massacre. Here's a good article on what actually happened during Euromaidan by journalist Kit Knightly: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ And here's a good article on the Odessa massacre that happened shortly thereafter by Russian historian Evgeny Norin: https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/

Lies, though to be fair, they were government sponsored lies. Yes, you are regurgitating Russian lies. I was talking about the lies you were regurgitating, try to keep up. But I didn't just -say- that what you were saying was lies, I provided evidence, evidence that you snipped out completely. For anyone here who may not have seen the evidence I'm referring to, it's here: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=57341&content_commentid=1822788 No lie. Russia's Igor Strelkov: I Am Responsible for War in Eastern Ukraine https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2014/11/21/russias-igor-strelkov-i-am-responsible-for-war-in-eastern-ukraine-a41598 "If our unit hadn't crossed the border, everything would have fizzled out — like in [the Ukrainian city of] Kharkiv, like in Odessa," Strelkov, who uses that nom-de-guerre meaning "Shooter" to replace his last name Girkin, was quoted as saying. "There would have been several dozen killed, burned, detained. And that would have been the end of it. But the flywheel of the war, which is continuing to this day, was spun by our unit. We mixed up all the cards on the table," he said." For the audience, I'd already pointed out that the Moscow Times has been a propaganda publication for western interests since its founding. For evidence of this, please see the following post: Not being a Russian state-sanctioned paper is your big argument? No, that was my last sentence. You may want to take a look at the rest of my post.

Lies, though to be fair, they were government sponsored lies. Yes, you are regurgitating Russian lies. I was talking about the lies you were regurgitating, try to keep up. But I didn't just -say- that what you were saying was lies, I provided evidence, evidence that you snipped out completely. For anyone here who may not have seen the evidence I'm referring to, it's here: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=57341&content_commentid=1822788

The Moscow Times? Oh User, your education on that publication is severely lacking. From the start, this publication has been run by someone that has cared little if at all for the truth. A good article on its founding to 2015, by John Helmer, one of its first writers, who was fired for not wanting to tell lies: https://www.counterpunch.org/2015/05/08/no-more-regurgitation-from-the-moscow-times/ Quoting from the beginning of the article: ** The Moscow Times version claims it “was established as Independent Media in March 1992 by a group of Dutch investors headed by Derk Sauer…From the beginning, founder Derk Sauer raised an ‘Iron Curtain’ between the editorial and commercial divisions as a precautionary measure to protect the newspaper’s reputation in a country where the media is still known for publishing paid-for articles. The newsroom and commercial offices even occupy separate floors at SIM’s headquarters in Moscow.” Sauer himself claims to have sold his “beautiful house” in the Netherlands to raise the cash to finance the start of the newspaper. “I sold the house,” he said last November, “developed a business plan, plunged into the company’s financial performance and become a true entrepreneur.” In 1992 Sauer told me himself he was getting investment from US sources. I am the last of the original Moscow Times writers still reporting from Moscow. The story of my sacking can be read, along with the story which caused it, here. At the beginning of September 1992, the political and constitutional conflict was intensifying between the Russian parliament, led by Ruslan Khasbulatov, and President Boris Yeltsin. Reporting on growing support for Khasbulatov and Yeltsin’s worsening position, I was told by the Times editor, then Meg Bortin (above, centre), to change my text, so that it would mean the opposite of what I was reporting, and favour Yeltsin. I refused; Bortin gave me an ultimatum; I refused again; the article was spiked; and I never appeared in The Moscow Times again (above right – Sauer and Bortin in 1992). According to an exchange of documents on September 4, 1992, Sauer proposed paying me a monthly stipend if I would stay silent. When Sauer’s payments stopped, I resumed regular reporting in the English-language media of Moscow – firstly in the Moscow Tribune published by Anthony Louis, then in The Russia Journal of Ajay Goyal (below). ** Sonoma acquired Independent Media in 2005, and sold "MoscowTimes LLC to Demyan Kudryavtsev [ru; et], a former director of Kommersant.[30][31][32]", according to Wikipedia. Continuing from Wikipedia: ** In 2017, the paper version stopped. The final paper edition appeared on 6 July.[33] In July 2017 the operation of the paper changed to Stichting 2 Oktober, a foundation based in the Netherlands.[34][35] The Moscow Times currently belongs to a limited liability company which is 51% owned by Russian businessman Vladimir Jao, the CEO of an airline catering company, 30% by Svetlana Korshunova (Russian: Светлана Коршунова), general director of the paper, and 19% by Derk Sauer, the original founder of the paper. Speaking to Kommersant, Derk Sauer explained that this is merely to comply with a Russian law which prohibits foreigners from controlling more than 20% of any Russia-based media company, since Sauer is a Dutch citizen. He further said that Vladimir Jao is an old friend of his, and "he does not control the publication, he is a partner".[36][37][38] In March 2020, the online newspaper launched a Russian language edition.[39] Following the passage of a law restricting coverage of the Russian invasion of Ukraine in March 2022, the newspaper moved its main editors to Amsterdam.[1][40] On 15 April, Roskomnadzor blocked access to the Russian-language website of The Moscow Times in Russia after it had published what authorities called a false report on Russian riot police officers refusing to participate in the invasion.[7][8] To make the website available within Russia despite blocks, it registered a range of domain names, sending links to the next current domain to readers via Telegram when one is blocked.[41] On 17 March 2023, The Moscow Times said it has been designated a ‘foreign agent’ by Russia's justice ministry, which accused The Moscow Times of spreading inaccurate information about authorities' decisions, thereby forming a negative image of Russia. The Moscow Times said that the foreign agent legislation had been "disproportionately used”.[42] On 10 July 2024, the Prosecutor General of Russia declared The Moscow Times an undesirable organization.[43] This designation practically bans the Times from operating in Russia, as anyone working for them or interacting with them (such as by agreeing to be interviewed) could potentially be prosecuted and sent to jail.[44] ** So clearly, this is -not- a Russian sanctioned paper at this point, but just another western publication.

This is an outright lie. Russian forces were directly involved in the initial fighting in 2014. They supplied weapons, tanks, artillery, troops, and special forces. Lies, though to be fair, they were government sponsored lies. As I mentioned (and you snipped out) in the post you were responding to, former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud blew the whistle on this false western mainstream media narrative, as well as many others in the following article: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ Quoting the relevant part: ** 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… **

Here, I very strongly disagree. ==== When the Berlin Wall fell, we defeated communism. Ordinary people were free. Russia is not a threat. China is not a threat. Ordinary Russians and ordinary Chinese can now travel abroad. Russia and China are threats to western elites that don't like the fact that these nations have clearly become major powers. Combined, I believe they are more than a match for the U.S. and its European lackeys. Russia has made it clear that it -will- retaliate if provoked, its war in Ukraine being the prime example. As the saying goes, don't poke the bear. I also strongly suspect China would also retaliate if the U.S. keeps on antagonizing it via political moves it does with regards to Taiwan. As has become increasingly clear, the United States' navy is no longer such a threat as it used to be, due in large part to the fact that a low budget military can do a lot of damage to it- the Houthis made that clear: https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/americas-defeat-by-gods-partisans

If I were Russian, I would insist on more. NATO must dissolve. Disappear. ===== To avoid a Summer 1914 disaster, we need a new structure of peace among the elites. Since the early 1990s, we haven't had it. I agree that NATO -should- be dissolved, but I think that Putin is smart in not demanding that. I think that Putin is aiming to get as much as he can -without- getting some western country do something particularly foolish, such as lobbing a nuke. I also think he's smart in on agreeing to talk to Trump and deftly saying that he'd like peace but certain conditions must be met every time. I think there was a really good paragraph from an article substack blogger Simplicius just published that you may also find interesting: ** Right now the prevailing mode of negotiations theater can be likened to a game of Musical Chairs, where each party plays along so as not to be the one left out without a chair in the end. In this case, everyone is playing along as wanting peace to deter accusations of warmongering, but in reality each party has their own secret motivations for continuing the conflict. In Russia’s case, it needs a decisive victory to keep the conflict from restarting in the future. In Europe’s case, they need a weakened Russia perpetually held in check via the yoke of sanctions and tensions. The US wouldn’t mind seeing all the parties weakened to the benefit of the US itself. ** Source: https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/putin-trump-phone-call-deadend-afu

Not now, but it certainly -was-. Ukraine was in a civil war for 8 -years- prior to Russia's military intervention. This is such a lie. You are just pushing propaganda for Putin. No, I'm just stating a fact. Hardly. You lied stating that Russia entered the war 8 years later. They pushed it from the beginning and had direct military interventions there. No, Russia's military only started fighting in Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud, whose job had been to find out where eastern Ukrainians were getting their weapons during the civil war figured that out. You can read his article where he brings this up here: https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/ Agreed. I didn't do that though. I posted a documentary from a German team of journalists documenting the 8 year civil war between western Ukraine and eastern Ukraine between 2014 and 2022. For anyone who missed the post in question, the documentary can be seen here:

This is such a lie. You are just pushing propaganda for Putin. No, I'm just stating a fact. I see you snipped out the part where I included a documentary by a team of German journalists who documented said civil war. For those who didn't see the post User is responding to, here is the documentary once more: No, what started the civil war was the removal of Viktor Yanukovych, who had been the elected President of Ukraine up until he had to flee for his life during Euromaidan. There's a very good article on Euromaidan that was published on the day that Russia started its military operation in Ukraine. It can be seen here: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

Not now, but it certainly -was-. Ukraine was in a civil war for 8 -years- prior to Russia's military intervention. It's a war that certainly wasn't well covered in the western mainstream media, but a team of German journalists did a good job of covering it. Their documentary can be seen here: This civil war, wherein thousands of Russian speakers died, was, I believe, the key factor in getting Putin to decide to go to war in Ukraine when he did. Here's what he said in the speech he gave when it all started, on February 24, 2022: ** 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. ** Full speech: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/transcripts/statements/67843

That basically fits Russia's demand. They've made it quite clear that they're not giving back the land in eastern Ukraine that they've taken, which is the 4 easternmost regions. The longer it takes for Ukraine to agree to this division, the more land they're likely to take. Russia even said that recently that the next time they would be asking for 4 regions, they'd be asking for 8. I think that "this time" hasn't yet expired, and Trump may understand this, thus his talking to Putin today. Hopefully something is worked out.

I don't need to provide you an article. Well that's certainly true.

I know what actually happened. I've seen no evidence of this. But I tell you what, provide me with an article from a different western journalist who actually -went- to Crimea after it was annexed, and I'll take a look.

I am not interested in your revisionist history. I'm not revising history, I'm trying to educate you as to what actually happened. If you don't want to inform yourself, that's your call, but once again, here is an article from a Canadian American journalist who actually went to Crimea after it was annexed to find out what actually happened: https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/

No, the courts have rendered verdicts. Proof is in the eye of the beholder. Or are you really saying that any court ruling means that something is 'proven'?

Yes... with Russia taking Crimea. Prior to Russia's allowing Crimea to rejoin it, Crimea held a referendum, wherein Crimeans were asked to vote as to whether they would like to rejoin Russia. They voted overwhelmingly to rejoin it. It stands to reason, given the fact that Crimea has always been predominantly Russian and wasn't given a choice when the Supreme Soviet decided to hand it over to Ukraine. If you'd like more details on what really happened prior to Russia's annexation of Crimea, I've found the following article to be quite knowledgeable on the subject: https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/ I've already countered this statement of yours back in the following post: https://repolitics.com/forums/?app=core&module=system&controller=content&do=find&content_class=forums_Topic&content_id=48379&content_commentid=1820259

No, it was not. Whatever your opinion is on the happenings of internal Ukraine politics, none of that was a war or the start of one. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that the war actually started in 2014. Sure, they try to say it was the "Russo-Ukraine" war, but the facts say otherwise: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War

Again, the whole truthnisnwhat I'm waiting for. These articles always slant reality to fit a narrative. You may recall that I asked you a question in the post of mine that you just responded to. To whit: "Aristides linked to 3 articles, not one. Did you read any of them?" I am -hoping- that you have now at least read the summary of the 1 article of Aristides that I quoted from. You may recall that I asked you to let me know if you found any errors in it. Did you?

Again, that is you trying to justify Russia starting a war... No, I'm trying to get you to realize that the war in Ukraine was started by what happened during Euromaidan. Some articles that are quite educational in this regard: https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/ https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

My position is quite clear here. I am not suggesting anything. Russia started this war. Russia took advantage of the chaos going on with the Ukrainian government and annexed Crimea. Do you know -why- there was chaos in the Ukrainian government?

No, that is not a start to any war. Are you suggesting that if France helped overthrow Canada's Prime Minister and then proceeded to aid and abet the new regime's persecution of its English speaking population that the U.S. would just sit placidly by? Or, assuming that you realize that the U.S. would -not- just sit watching placidly, do you think that the world would agree that it was the U.S. that "started" a war when it went in to protect the English speaking population of Canada?

Is this better or worse than Biden trying to prosecute Trump lawyers for defending him from Joe's Banana Republic? Do 2 wrongs make a right? No, but three lefts do. You assume what is reported in the article is the whole truth. Until we see the whole truth, I'll stick to sarcasm and pointing out the hypocrisy of the left. Aristides linked to 3 articles, not one. Did you read any of them? I'll quote from the summary from the first, let me know if you find any errors in it: ** 67 current and former general counsels submit legal brief Filing backs Perkins Coie in lawsuit against Trump administration Trump orders 'hijack' companies' ability to choose lawyers, brief says ** Source: https://www.reuters.com/legal/former-top-lawyers-major-companies-decry-trump-orders-against-law-firms-2025-04-08/ When I first read that summary, I had no idea what Perkins Coie was. I do now. An article on the Perkins Coie lawfirm's win against Trump: https://www.reuters.com/legal/how-trumps-own-words-helped-him-lose-fight-with-law-firm-perkins-coie-2025-05-06/ Again, let me know if you find anything wrong with the summary of this article: ** Trump targets law firms he disfavors with punitive orders Judge Howell invalidates Trump's Perkins Coie directive Trump's public comments underpinned finding of retaliation **

Do 2 wrongs make a right?

No, you're wrong about that too. American Professor and Statesman Jeffrey Sachs set the record straight on that in a speech he gave to European Parliament back in February. Quoting: ** Now in 2014, the U.S. worked actively to overthrow Yanukovych. Everybody knows the phone call intercepted by my Columbia University colleague, Victoria Nuland, and the U.S. ambassador, Geoffrey Pyatt. You don’t get better evidence. The Russians intercepted her call, and they put it on the Internet. It’s fascinating. By doing that, they all got promoted in the Biden administration. That’s the job. When the Maidan occurred, I was called soon after. “Professor Sachs, the new Ukrainian prime minister would like to see you to talk about the economic crisis.” So, I flew to Kyiv, and I was walked around the Maidan. And I was told how the U.S. paid the money for all the people around the Maidan, the “spontaneous” Revolution of Dignity. Ladies and gentlemen, please, how did all those Ukrainian media outlets suddenly appear at the time of the Maidan? Where did all this organization come from? Where did all these buses come from? Where did all those people come from? Are you kidding? This is an organized effort. And it’s not a secret, except perhaps to citizens of Europe and the United States. Everyone else understands it quite clearly. ** Source: https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/ That's not even the darkest part of what happened during Euromaidan. This is the darkest part: https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684 Nothing in this speech you provided shows or explains how I am wrong. I have a feeling you'd see things differently if Russia were to help overthrow the elected President of the United States. How would that make me see things differently? So you're saying Americans wouldn't be hopping mad with Russia if that happened? The discussion we are having is not about how mad people would be. You're right, it was about who started the war. I'd say that the U.S.'s part in overthrowing Viktor Yanukovych, who was the elected Ukrainian President at the time, was what started it all. I mean tell me, if France helped overthrow Canada's Prime Minister, then the new government insisted that all government institutions and schools spoke French, causing the English part of Canada to rebel, you don't think that the U.S. would step in?