ignorethefacts
Joined 3 years ago
Joined 3 years ago
It's obvious from every question you have asked that you only consume information from sources that push the "approved narrative". Are you able to imagine anything outside of your current Russia-Ukraine dataset?
> How do you justify Russia invading a sovereign country?
I'm sure what you mean by that is, "do I think Russia was justified in defending their sovereignty from the numerous violations of international agreements ultimately threatening their sovereignty", then yes. "Do I think Russia is justified in liberating and defending a peoples under siege and in need of help?", yes.
> Does that not constitute a death march?
I don't really understand your question, so from wiki: "A death march is a forced march of prisoners of war or other captives or deportees in which individuals are left to die along the way. ... Death marches usually feature harsh physical labour and abuse, neglect of prisoner injury and illness, deliberate starvation and dehydration, humiliation, torture, and execution of those unable to keep up the marching pace. The march may end at a prisoner-of-war camp or internment camp, or it may continue until all the prisoners are dead. "
From that I still don't understand your question.
Anyone with any military understanding and with the factual account of the situation on-the-ground in Ukraine (which you can not get from sources pushing the "approved narrative") will draw the inevitable conclusion that Ukraine will is not and never was capable of achieving any kind of victory against Russia in this confrontation. The Western leaders must know this. I can not believe that the US military and other Western militaries have not presented detailed reports to the leaders explaining this conclusion down to the most mundane of details.
Russia has offered reasonable terms and has been present for negotiations, but it was Ukraine at the behest of the Western death-cult that has forced peace to fail each time.
> Why would you think the western world ( the death cult ? ) would want to support Russia's aggression instead of Ukraine's defense?
A war fought on the defense can never result in victory. The western support of Ukraine is provided on the provision that Ukraine does not attack Russian territory.
The support the western world is "giving" to Ukraine is not free. On top of the pointless death, destruction and devastation that Ukraine is suffering, Ukraine will inevitably have to repay the debt incurred from the "gifts". Ukraine is nothing to the western world, just a dog to kick and a cow to milk all the while serving as a cautionary tale designed to keep other nations in line and their own citizens blood appetite sated for now and hooked in anticipation for a feast soon.
> And finally, with the entire world already against Russia's aggression, why would Canada need to discredit India who's Russian support seems to be limited to dark room oil deals?
"the entire world" only stands against Russia in your perception, formed from a curated bubble of "approved sources". In reality, the world is split and Russia has powerful allies, one of which is the long-standing ally India. India is not just a back-room oil partner for Russia, they are an important and powerful military ally. By global population, Russia has more support than Ukraine. But of course, "the entire world" doesn't consider all lives equal so who cares about little details like that.
Canada is part of the death cult hell bent on world domination. The current plan involves using Ukrainians as fodder in a hopeless attempt for what they outwardly claim is the defeat of Russia. India is one of Russia's key allies and blowing up such a minor event in the media follows the trend of isolating and disrupting Russia's allies, both physically and in the minds of the people in the west.
1) You have other nations as co-conspirators who know that you nor they have nuclear weapons.
2) You have other nations who are not co-conspirators who don't know that you don't have nuclear weapons.
2 a) Some of these nations might claim they have nuclear weapons.
2 a i) The original lie is perpetuated because it's useful.
2 a ii) The original lie is perpetuated because the other nations fear they might actually have figured it out.
2 b) Some of these nations will want nuclear weapons and invest vast resources into a program that can never eventuate. They will be forever trapped in submission.
2 c) Some of these nations will be allies who purchase "nuclear weapons" but they are never allowed to verify them.
3) You have the general public indoctrinated in the belief that nuclear weapons exist. 3 a) It would be easy to control your own populations because they fear nuclear war.
3 b) It would be easy to control other populations because they fear nuclear war.
3 c) "Why bother, we don't have nukes" mentality.
---The common belief is that the world would be doomed by the firecrackers going off. But the world is very large and life on earth has survived worse. The power in any threat is the idea of "what might happen". Ideas like "we might ignite the entire atmosphere of earth", "radioactive fallout will spread throughout the earth", "a nuclear winter will destroy life on earth". Such existential fear porn easily embeds into imagination when accompanied by visual imagery that we've all been exposed to. Whether nuclear weapons were real or not, the "nuclear deterrent" would be just as effective.
Conventional weapons are extremely destructive and devastating. Germany and Japan got to taste that in their defeat as the allies ruthlessly firebombed defenseless urban centers [0][1][2].
[0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-51448486 [1] https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-43546839 [2] https://www.elsevier.com/connect/maps-reveal-how-japans-citi...
It's not just the internet that has gone through this, any endeavor that involves an audience will undergo a commercialization optimization process which will erode the essence of what was enjoyable to uncover what is functional. Many meaningful questions can be asked about this, all beginning with 'why'.
You can still find pieces of amateur enthusiasm in various niches hidden in corners unsearchable, almost a self-protective mechanism naturally evolved to keep what little remains for people to enjoy from the eroding process.
For example in this article, let's take the numbers and statements that provide at face value. The article claims: there is a rising number of LGBT+ individuals being outed because of technology. The claim of course carries forward the lie that LGBT+ has always existed naturally in the same proportions over time and therefore concludes that the rise of outings must be because of the technology. No need to consider any other possibilities because the article doesn't even make it sound like there's any doubt. Propaganda payload successfully delivered.
The claims that LGBT+ individuals are being targeted specifically is absurd in any case, because schools in the Western world have been force feeding the LGBT+ agenda with vigor as of late.
It's what I expected, what the UN predicts follows the agenda of the day. Previous it was the fear of some enemy population and now they are trying to normalise the idea of population reduction.