Ukraine Can't Win the War

[Scott75]

  

1 hour ago, User said:

Once again, you are lying about what happened in Ukraine. This is pure Russian propaganda that you are pushing to somehow justify their war, to all out full blown invade Ukraine. 

38 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. Im sorry you dont understand the danger of war between Russia and NATO. 

Not a lie at all. Truth.

Do you really think all the evidence and the bare facts surrounding The Green T-Shirt's election and the NATO operations to make it happen?

Do you not find it interesting that, soon after campaigning for peace and unity, he then sent the Azov battalion to the eastern provinces to Crack down on ethnic Russians? He could have negotiated with these folks, I would think. Instead...he attacked. The Russian Ukrainians fought back. They begged Russia for help. Warnings were sent though diplomatic channels. They were ignored. So finally...the Russian Duma voted to attack.

That...my friend...is what happened. 

A few points: I don't know how much energy NATO put into Zelensky's election. I -do- know that the U.S. put a lot of energy into removing former elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. Journalist Kit Knightly published a good article that gets into this on the day that Russia started its military operation in Ukraine here:

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

The sad thing is that for all Yanukovych's flaws, he was trying to do the only thing that can work for in the long term- trying to balance western interests with Russian interests.

When it comes to Zelensky's 360 on his peace mandate, it looks like the U.S. should at least take some of the blame, by not putting in any energy that I could see into encouraging actually working out a peace deal. On the home front, Zelensky soon realized just how dangerous it could be for him to try to work out a real deal with Russia. Quoting from an article written by well known journalist Aaron Mate on the subject shortly after Russia's military intervention in Ukraine began:

**

In April 2019, Zelensky was elected with an overwhelming 73% of the vote on a promise to turn the tide. In his inaugural address the next month, Zelensky declared that he was "not afraid to lose my own popularity, my ratings," and was "prepared to give up my own position – as long as peace arrives."

But Ukraine's powerful far-right and neo-Nazi militias made clear to Zelensky that reaching peace in the Donbas would have a much higher cost.

"No, he would lose his life," Right Sector co-founder Dmytro Anatoliyovych Yarosh, then the commander of the Ukrainian Volunteer Army, responded one week after Zelensky's inaugural speech. "He will hang on some tree on Khreshchatyk - if he betrays Ukraine and those people who died in the Revolution and the War."

Along with the threats to his life, Zelensky experienced direct obstacles to his peace mandate on multiple fronts.

When Zelensky travelled to the Donbas in October 2019 to promote elections for the rebel-held areas, he was confronted by angry members of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion rallying under the slogan of "No to Capitulation." In one exchange caught on video, Zelensky sparred with an Azov member over the president's calls for a military drawdown. "I’m the president of this country. I’m 41 years old. I’m not a loser. I came to you and told you: remove the weapons," Zelensky pleaded.

 

 

But Zelensky met continued defiance. The same far-right forces set up an armed checkpoint to delay a Ukrainian military pullback. Thousands of far-right and nationalist protesters, cheered by the liberal intelligentsia and carrying flares as torches, also marched in Kiev.

When Zelensky's press secretary, Iuliia Mendel, "drew attention to the prevalence of civilian casualties" in the Donbas, "which she blamed on government forces’ injudicious use of return fire," she was greeted instead with "a prosecutorial summons," Katharine Quinn-Judge of the International Crisis Group reported in April 2020, one year after Zelensky's election. Mendel's recognition of the suffering in the Donbas, Quinn-Judge observed, resulted from "Zelensky's campaign pledge to treat residents of Russia-backed enclaves more like full-fledged Ukrainians," – a non-starter for the US-favored far-right nationalists, who harbored no such interest in Ukrainians' equality.

Although Zelensky dithered on Minsk, he nonetheless continued talks on its implementation. The far-right continued to express its violent opposition at every turn, such as in August 2021, when at least eight police officers were wounded in armed protests outside the presidential offices.

The far-right threats to Zelensky undoubtedly thwarted a peace agreement that could have prevented the Russian invasion. Just two weeks before Russia troops entered Ukraine, the New York Times noted that Zelensky "would be taking extreme political risks even to entertain a peace deal" with Russia, as his government "could be rocked and possibly overthrown" by far-right groups if he "agrees to a peace deal that in their minds gives too much to Moscow."

Yuri Hudymenko, leader of the far-right Democratic Ax, even threatened Zelensky with an outright coup: "If anybody from the Ukrainian government tries to sign such a document, a million people will take to the streets and that government will cease being the government."

Zelensky has clearly gotten the message. Instead of pursuing the peace platform that he was elected on, the Ukrainian President has instead made alliances with the Ukrainian far-right that violently opposed it. As recently as late January, amid last-chance talks to salvage the Minsk accords, Zelensky-appointed Ukrainian security chief Oleksiy Danilov instead pronounced that "the fulfillment of the Minsk agreement means the country’s destruction." At the final round of Minsk talks in February, just two weeks before Russia's invasion, a "key obstacle," the Washington Post reported, "was Kyiv’s opposition to negotiating with the pro-Russian separatists."

Zelensky's acquiescence to Nazi forces was most recently underscored on April 7th, when an address to the Greek parliament was overshadowed by his airing of a video featuring a member of the neo-Nazi Azov battalion. 

"I think Zelensky found out very quickly that because of the Ukrainian right, it was impossible to implement Minsk II," John Mearsheimer, the University of Chicago professor and outspoken critic of US policies in Ukraine, said in a public event the same day. "…Zelensky understands that he cannot take the Ukrainian right on by himself. So basically we have a situation where Zelensky is stymied."

Echoing his late friend and colleague Stephen F. Cohen, Mearsheimer stressed the centrality of the US role.

"The Americans will side with the Ukrainian right," Mearsheimer said. "Because the Americans, and the Ukrainian right, both do not want Zelensky cutting a deal with the Russians that makes it look like the Russians won. So this is the principal reason that I'm very pessimistic about Ukraine's ability to help shut this one down."

**

Full article:

https://www.aaronmate.net/p/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us

Edited February 13 by Scott75

[Scott75]

39 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

I will concede 1 point. The Russians were repeatedly asked by the inhabitants of Crimea, to join Russia. So Russia moved in. That act was quite...provocative.

From what I've read, it was understandable- my understanding is that following the flight of Viktor Yanukovych, the elected President of Ukraine at the time, the new interim government had started to take steps to try to secure Sevastopol, the Russian port in Crimea that Ukraine had leased to Russia. My read is that this is something Russia simply wouldn't tolerate- the fact that Crimeans had been Russian for a lot longer then they had been Ukrainian (and had had no choice in leaving Russia) was what made it easy for Russia to annex Crimea- from what I've read, most Crimeans clearly wanted to return to Russia. Up until this point, I have only found a single article published by a western journalist who actually interviewed Crimeans in Crimea after 2014 on Crimea's annexation or, as she put it, return to Russia- that of Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett. I thought the testimony she recorded was quite revealing. It's here if you're interested:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/

[User]

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Yes. Im sorry you dont understand the danger of war between Russia and NATO. 

No, I am just pointing out the duplicity on your part how in one comment you say NATO has no reason to exist becuase Russia is no threat and then in the next you fear-monger about how Russia is a threat and will start WWIII.

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Not a lie at all. Truth.

Do you really think all the evidence and the bare facts surrounding The Green T-Shirt's election and the NATO operations to make it happen?

Yes, you are pushing lies. I have refuted this same lie of yours over and over and over again on here. To your point, you are here pushing Putins lies. Yes, I believe NATO and the evidence we have over Putin's lies. 

As I keep pointing out, for whatever reason, you are in the tank for Russia. 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

Do you not find it interesting that, soon after campaigning for peace and unity, he then sent the Azov battalion to the eastern provinces to Crack down on ethnic Russians? He could have negotiated with these folks, I would think. Instead...he attacked. The Russian Ukrainians fought back. They begged Russia for help. Warnings were sent though diplomatic channels. They were ignored. So finally...the Russian Duma voted to attack.

This is a lie.

Putin backed separatists with military support and outright Russian troops to declare breakaway republics, and then Ukraine sent forces in, more than the Azov battalion.

They were not sent there to crack down on ethnic Russians. 

The Russian-backed separatists did not "fight back"; they were the ones who started the takeover. 

 They did not beg Russia for help, they were already backed by Russia. 

1 hour ago, Nationalist said:

That...my friend...is what happened. 

I will concede 1 point. The Russians were repeatedly asked by the inhabitants of Crimea, to join Russia. So Russia moved in. That act was quite...provocative.

That is a revision of history on your part because you are a dishonest liar who backs Russia and Putin and might as well be their spokesperson and minister of propaganda. 

 

[John Stone]

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As I've pointed out in previous posts here, this entire mess could have been avoided if the west, and especially the U.S., had listened to the likes of American Professors John Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs. We can't turn back the clock, but we can at least learn from the past. There was a time early on during Russia's military intervention in Ukraine when Russia had said that it was prepared to leave Ukraine, with the exception of Crimea which it annexed back in 2014 after Crimeans voted overwhelming to rejoin Russia. There are article about it, including this one:

https://www.fairobserver.com/world-news/the-wests-disastrous-decision-to-reject-peace-in-ukraine/

That time is over, in no small part because the 4 Ukrainian regions you brought up all had elections and all voted to join Russia as well. I'd heed what was apparently said by certain Russian diplomats after some fairly recent negotiations with Ukraine- the gist is that a Russian reporter asked if the next time there were negotiations, Russia would be demanding 5 regions instead of 4. The negotiators, perhaps partially in jest, but, I suspect, only partially said, "No, next time it will be 8".

The Ukrainian people as a whole gain nothing by not beating a hasty path to the negotiating table. It's only the Ukrainian elites who would fall for following the primrose path laid out by the Americans.

They say that hindsight is 20/20 - who would argue?

In hindsight, I believe those elections u quoted were right out of the dictator's Sudetenland playbook - tainted and  illegitimate. 

In  hindsight what should have been done post Crimea is for Europe  to turn Ukraine into an armed camp. 

Historically making the juice not worth the squeeze keeps the dogs of war at bay........... it works and has proven to work. 

I believe Ukraine would consider an extended armistice a 'win'. 

Of course Russia rejected it. ................ Russia is governed with something resembling Al Capones HQ in Cicero, Illinois. 

Why does Ukraine fight on?

Did Europe fold under the onslaught of the Nazi.

Did the United States fold under the weight of imperialism? 

Did Vietnam fold under the weight of imperialism, corruption and hegemony?

Did China?

Did Russia itself - post revolution?  

Those that criticize Ukraine should at the least respect their struggle, acknowledge the sacrifice and simply admire the leadership. 

Putin will not pull in his horns until he faces opponents that are willing to 'punch up' or the Trump administration is defeated in Congress. In  terms of strategy it is sound and that is the reason he will not negotiate an extended truce. 

oh yeah, there's China ............ Taiwan? 

 

Edited February 13 by John Stone

[User]

6 hours ago, Scott75 said:

A few points: I don't know how much energy NATO put into Zelensky's election. I -do- know that the U.S. put a lot of energy into removing former elected Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych. Journalist Kit Knightly published a good article that gets into this on the day that Russia started its military operation in Ukraine here:

Listen, I am not even going further than the first paragraph of your link because it is pushing the same BS lies that I have debunked over and over again on here about James Baker and NATO not moving an inch east. 

There was NEVER any official agreement that NATO would never move an inch East. None. James Baker said this in negotiations, and afterwards said he had no authority to make such a deal, nor did NATO or the US ever agree to any such deal. 

 

[Scott75]

On 2/13/2026 at 4:16 PM, John Stone said:

They say that hindsight is 20/20 - who would argue?

I've certainly heard the saying before- I think we might agree that it's not always 20/20, but It's certainly generally better than what we believe now, at least so long as the people doing the analysis are willing to face hard truths.

On 2/13/2026 at 4:16 PM, John Stone said:

In hindsight, I believe those elections u quoted were right out of the dictator's Sudetenland playbook - tainted and  illegitimate.

In reference to Crimea, based on what news outlets such as CNN were apparently saying at the time, I can see how you could come to that conclusion. This is why it's important for reporters to actually ask Crimeans what they thought of the referendum they had on whether they'd like to rejoin Russia. To date, I know of only a single western journalist who went to Crimea after it was annexed, asked Crimeans what they thought of it and published an article on her findings- Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett. Here it is:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/return-russia-crimea-story-referendum-lives-since/262247/

I think the following passage in her article as she interviewed a woman named Tata was particularly telling:

**

Since there was so much hype in Western media about a Russian takeover of the peninsula, I ask the burning questions: Were Crimeans forced to take part in the referendum? What was the mood like around that time? Tata replied:

I never saw so many people in my life go out to vote, of their own free will. There was a period before the referendum, maybe about two months, during which there were two holidays: International Women’s Day, March 8, and Defender of the Fatherland Day, February 23.

Normally, people would go away on vacation during these holidays. But that year, Crimeans didn’t go anywhere; they wanted to be sure they were here during the referendum. We felt the sense of a miracle about to happen. People were anxiously awaiting the referendum.

There were military tents in the city, but they were not erected by the military, but by local men. They would stand there every day, and people could come and sign a document calling for a referendum.

I went one day and asked if I could add my name but I couldn’t, because I have a Russian passport. Only Crimean citizens could sign it. This was the fair way to do it.

At that time, my husband was in America. One day, he was watching CNN and got scared and called me because he saw reports of soldiers in the streets, an ‘invasion’ by Russia.

The local navy came from Sevastopol to Yalta and anchored their ships off the coast, made a blockade to ensure no larger Ukrainian or other ships could come and attack.

But I never saw tanks, I never saw Russian soldiers. I never saw any of that in the city.”

I asked Tata about how life had changed after the referendum:

When I came here in December 2012, everything was dilapidated and run down. The nice roads you were driving on, they didn’t exist when we were a part of Ukraine. I didn’t understand why Crimea was still a part of Ukraine. It was Russian land ever since the Tsars, the imperial time of Russia. This is where the Russian soul is, and the soul of the Russian navy.

After the Soviet Union collapsed, it wasn’t the will of the Crimean people to join Ukraine. People were always Russian here; they always identified as Russian. Ukraine understood this well, and put nothing into Crimea, as punishment. Ukraine didn’t build any hospitals, kindergartens or roads.

In the past four years, the Crimean government has built 200 new kindergartens. This is the most obvious example of how things have improved. They also built the new Simferopol airport.

I worked in aviation. It took three years to build an airport of this standard in Yekaterinburg, Russia. It took half a year in Simferopol.”

**

[Scott75]

On 2/13/2026 at 4:16 PM, John Stone said:

In hindsight, I believe those elections u quoted were right out of the dictator's Sudetenland playbook - tainted and  illegitimate.

I'm once again addressing this point of yours, but this time focusing on the referendums in the 4 Ukrainian regions other than Crimea as to whether they truly voted to join Russia. I certainly think it would be nice if there had been more independent observers, but there certainly were -some-, including Canadian American journalist Eva Bartlett, which I mentioned in my previous post. Here's an article that includes a video of her interviewing people in the Donetsk region of Ukraine shortly before they had a referendum there:

https://odysee.com/@EvaKareneBartlett:9/dpr-civilians-on-why-they-wanted-a:d

[Scott75]

On 2/13/2026 at 4:16 PM, John Stone said:

In  hindsight what should have been done post Crimea is for Europe  to turn Ukraine into an armed camp.

From what I've read, I strongly suspect that this would have just speeded up Russia's decision to intervene militarily in Ukraine. Obama realized the danger of arming Ukraine, which is why he refused to do it. An article that gets into that:

https://www.aaronmate.net/p/siding-with-ukraines-far-right-us?utm_source=publication-search

Quoting the relevant section:

**

On a warm October day in 2019, the eminent Russia studies professor Stephen F. Cohen and I sat down in Manhattan for what would be our last in-person interview (Cohen passed away in September 2020 at the age of 81).

The House was gearing up to impeach Donald Trump for freezing weapons shipments to Ukraine while pressuring its government to investigate Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The Beltway media was consumed with frenzy of a presidency in peril. But Professor Cohen, one of the leading Russia scholars in the United States, was concerned with what the impeachment spectacle in Washington meant for the long-running war between the US-backed Ukrainian government and Russian-backed rebels in the Donbas. 

At that point, Ukraine's Volodymyr Zelensky was just months into an upstart presidency that he had won on a pledge to end the Donbas conflict. Instead of supporting the Ukrainian leader's peace mandate, Democrats in Congress were impeaching Trump for briefly impeding the flow of weapons that fueled the fight. As his Democratic allies now like to forget, President Obama refused to send these same weapons out of fear of prolonging the war and arming Nazis. By abandoning Obama’s policy, the Democrats, Cohen warned, threatened to sabotage peace and strengthen Ukraine's far-right.

**

I think there's also something here that's pretty important, which is what started the Ukrainian civil war, as well as Russia's decision to accept Crimeans voting to return to Russia and quite possibly the Crimean referendum itself- Euromaidan. There's an article from Kit Knightly, published on the day that Russia started its military intervention in Ukraine, that I think is quite educational on the subject. It can be seen here:

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

 

[Scott75]

On 2/13/2026 at 4:16 PM, John Stone said:

Of course Russia rejected it.

What do you think Russia rejected?

[John Stone]

10 hours ago, Scott75 said:

What do you think Russia rejected?

Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the U.N. on Dec 2, 1991.

This recognition was affirmed by a majority of Ukrainians.

What more needs to be said?

You seem to be to blaming the victim and not the aggressor?

Ukraine has every  right to defend it's sovereignty .......... and the determination to not wanting to live under the jackboot of an authoritarian regime?

Israel I'm sure,  listening to arguments criticizing Ukraine's right to exist must experience a feeling of deju vue? 

Edited February 15 by John Stone

[Scott75]

On 2/15/2026 at 10:40 AM, John Stone said:

  

On 2/15/2026 at 12:12 AM, Scott75 said:

What do you think Russia rejected?

Ukraine was recognized as an independent country by the U.N. on Dec 2, 1991.

This recognition was affirmed by a majority of Ukrainians.

What more needs to be said?

 

Russia recognized it as well. I've also seen no evidence that Russia doesn't still recognize that Ukraine is an independent country.

 

On 2/15/2026 at 10:40 AM, John Stone said:

You seem to be to blaming the victim and not the aggressor?

I disagree. I think the main issue here is that people don't really understand who really started this war. I'll give you a hint- it wasn't Russia.

  

On 2/15/2026 at 10:40 AM, John Stone said:

Ukraine has every  right to defend it's sovereignty .......... and the determination to not wanting to live under the jackboot of an authoritarian regime?

Ukraine was usurped by neo nazi forces back in 2014. Since then, it spiralled into a civil war, as the Russian speaking eastern side rebelled. Those same neo nazi forces persuaded Zelensky to attack the Donbass rebels just days before Russia finally decided that enough was enough. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer gets into the details in the following article if you're interested:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

  

On 2/15/2026 at 10:40 AM, John Stone said:

Israel I'm sure,  listening to arguments criticizing Ukraine's right to exist must experience a feeling of deju vue? 

Israel was created by stealing the homes of Arabs and killing an increasing number of them as the years went by. Like the takeover of Ukraine in 2014 by neo nazi forces, they have committed many atrocities, but it's now gotten to the point where even many of its western backers have turned against them. Even American citizens now sympathize more with the Palestinians than with the Israelies at this point- it's the younger generation that's changing the statistics here. Simplicius, a substacker who someone here introduced me to, wrote a good article that mentions this, as well as how the U.S. is beginning to feel the bite of its support for this ever warring nation:

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-suffers-worst-day-of-air-losses

 

[John Stone]

49 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

Russia recognized it as well. I've also seen no evidence that Russia doesn't still recognize that Ukraine is an independent country.

 

I disagree. I think the main issue here is that people don't really understand who really started this war. I'll give you a hint- it wasn't Russia.

  

Ukraine was usurped by neo nazi forces back in 2014. Since then, it spiralled into a civil war, as the Russian speaking eastern side rebelled. Those same neo nazi forces persuaded Zelensky to attack the Donbass rebels just days before Russia finally decided that enough was enough. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer gets into the details in the following article if you're interested:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

  

Israel was created by stealing the homes of Arabs and killing an increasing number of them as the years went by. Like the takeover of Ukraine in 2014 by neo nazi forces, they have committed many atrocities, but it's now gotten to the point where even many of its western backers have turned against them. Even American citizens now sympathize more with the Palestinians than with the Israelies at this point- it's the younger generation that's changing the statistics here. Simplicius, a substacker who someone here introduced me to, wrote a good article that mentions this, as well as how the U.S. is beginning to feel the bite of its support for this ever warring nation:

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-suffers-worst-day-of-air-losses

 

[John Stone]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

 

Russia recognized it as well. I've also seen no evidence that Russia doesn't still recognize that Ukraine is an independent country.

 

I disagree. I think the main issue here is that people don't really understand who really started this war. I'll give you a hint- it wasn't Russia.

  

Ukraine was usurped by neo nazi forces back in 2014. Since then, it spiralled into a civil war, as the Russian speaking eastern side rebelled. Those same neo nazi forces persuaded Zelensky to attack the Donbass rebels just days before Russia finally decided that enough was enough. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer gets into the details in the following article if you're interested:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

  

Israel was created by stealing the homes of Arabs and killing an increasing number of them as the years went by. Like the takeover of Ukraine in 2014 by neo nazi forces, they have committed many atrocities, but it's now gotten to the point where even many of its western backers have turned against them. Even American citizens now sympathize more with the Palestinians than with the Israelies at this point- it's the younger generation that's changing the statistics here. Simplicius, a substacker who someone here introduced me to, wrote a good article that mentions this, as well as how the U.S. is beginning to feel the bite of its support for this ever warring nation:

https://simplicius76.substack.com/p/us-suffers-worst-day-of-air-losses

 

[User]

15 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'll give you a hint- it wasn't Russia.

You have no grounding in reality here as your posts are little more than propaganda and lies straight from the mouth of Putin. 
 

[Scott75]

4 hours ago, User said:

You have no grounding in reality here [snip]

I'm the only one in this debate quoting articles. Those articles in turn frequently have sources of their own. Those on the other side of this debate just spout of unsubstantiated assertions.

[User]

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I'm the only one in this debate quoting articles. Those articles in turn frequently have sources of their own. Those on the other side of this debate just spout of unsubstantiated assertions.

No, you are not the only one, but just because you quote something from some random person who is a propagandist doesn’t make it true. 

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, User said:

No

Yes, but if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means point to the articles that you've cited.

[User]

2 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Yes, but if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means point to the articles that you've cited.

This thread is almost 100 pages now. Are you saying you have read them all to sit here accusing me of never using an article? 
 

If you answer that question, I’ll gladly go prove you wrong. 
 

[Scott75]

1 hour ago, User said:

  

2 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Yes, but if you'd like to provide evidence to the contrary, by all means point to the articles that you've cited.

This thread is almost 100 pages now. Are you saying you have read them all to sit here accusing me of never using an article?

Fair enough, I have indeed not read all 100 pages. Why don't you demonstrate that you do more than just posit unsubstantiated assertions and cite some articles to back up your assertions?

[User]

Just now, Scott75 said:

Fair enough, I have indeed not read all 100 pages. Why don't you demonstrate that you do more than just posit unsubstantiated assertions and cite some articles to back up your assertions?

Just because you link to some garbage claimed by someone else doesn’t lend any credibility to it, it’s just someone else garbage assertion.

My pointing that out is just that. 
 

 

[Scott75]

4 minutes ago, User said:

  

10 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

Fair enough, I have indeed not read all 100 pages. Why don't you demonstrate that you do more than just posit unsubstantiated assertions and cite some articles to back up your assertions?

Just because you link to some [insult removed]

 

For a moment, I thought you might actually post an article or 2 that actually backed one of the various assertions that you've made here. Alas, it seems you opted for simply making more unsubstantiated assertions.

[User]

4 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

 

For a moment, I thought you might actually post an article or 2 that actually backed one of the various assertions that you've made here. Alas, it seems you opted for simply making more unsubstantiated assertions.

OK. Pick out one of my of the assertions you have an issue with.

This is the problem, I’ve engaged with you plenty on here and you don’t respond, and now you just pretend as if it was all baseless.

Its quite disingenuous.

So, if you want to challenge something, do so. Pick one out. 

Edited March 4 by User

[Scott75]

8 hours ago, User said:

OK. Pick out one of my of the assertions you have an issue with.

You asserting that my sources are "garbage".

[User]

8 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

You asserting that my sources are "garbage".

Which one? 

If we are speaking generally here, they are. You do not use any credible, unbiased mainstream news reporting articles citing facts; they are biased opinion pieces, if not outright lies or the work of using one small fact out of context wrapped around an opinion or baseless assertion drawn from it. 

So, pick one out, lets play. 

[Scott75]

7 hours ago, User said:

  

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

You asserting that my sources are "garbage".

Which one?. 

You didn't specify. That's the thing with your posts generally- vague statements, backed by nothing.