Just a feeling due to the situation overall and blowing those bridges. At such an early point and all at once, it seems a very bad move. You would blow them as you go. As the line of retreat passed them. A lot of forces have to move out of a large area. Cutting your own options of movement down seems a bad idea. Unless a deal has been made.
Of course if a deal was made. Are you just being a dick by blowing them? Maybe.
I have to say the other thread is getting quite good.
Give and take. Ideas being talked through instead of just trashed as Putin lovers, propaganda.
It’s funny what happens when people stop posting Russian propaganda in a thread.
Not so long ago the things that are being rationally discussed would have been flamed. I did not post crazy stuff.
You were citing RT for fucks’ sake, 
Things from RT that were correct. Later or concurrently backed up by western sources. I also posted stuff from western sources that were correct. But flamed. So the announcements on Russian sources such as RT that Russia is retreating from Kherson must be false?
RT is actually a good source because it knows it is being highly scrutinized. So the things that they cite by named folks is pretty solid. BUT. You have to take into account the slant. What they do not say. Then check other sources to fill in the blanks and try and level out the slant.
It is not good to ignore all the other side sources. But take the information in and fill in the blanks and opposites with other sides sources.
It’s actually a lot easier to not go to a source you already know is full of shit and have to research to try and fill in the blanks. Saves you a lot of time. Da?
I hear there may be an opening in the batshit conspiracy department with the outcome of the Alex Jones lawsuits. Your first thought upon hearing some sort of confirmation that Russia may intend to retreat from the west bank of the Dnieper is that it is the result of secret negotiations? Are you high?
Why of course, Ukraine would be a fool to not take Putin’s word that he’ll stop the power grid attacks in exchange for allowing Russia to withdraw from the oblast it illegally claimed to have annexed. Putin only speaks truth and never goes back on his word. Putin said there were no Russian troops in Crimea in 2014. Putin said he wouldn’t invade Ukraine. Putin said he wouldn’t mobilize. Putin said he wouldn’t declare martial law. Only a fool wouldn’t trust old reliable Putin’s word, da comrad?
I swear to god that I am high at least 100% of 50% of the time, and this theory would have never occurred to me. Stop slandering your fellow fun-loving multicellular organisms.
Ok, Kedikat may have a lower tolerance than myself. It still wouldn’t excuse it.
I would not go to your place for dinner.
Because I’d rather not eat succotash that started by picking corn out of turds, then adding the other vegetables. No matter how well you rinsed it.
If Putin relaxed and smoked some pot every once in a while we probably wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with.
There were people in the 1930s who claimed that the Völkischer Beobachter was at least as reliable a source of information as the New York Times.
I do not say as reliable. I specifically say you have to filter the source. Take for granted it is slanted. Consider what is not said. How things are phrased. This is true with most sources on both sides of issues. News sources are not always unbiased. They may be reporting on quite foreign subjects, but even so may slant things to favour a certain political/social/ratings bias in their country. Some sources are driven to please their base. So again will skew things. Even if what they say is not incorrect, the way they present it, what they do not present, the veracity of their cites, may all be twisting the concept of what they are reporting.
One needs to parse it out. Especially note what is or is not attached to named sources. The term " Sources said. " can be almost meaningless. Especially if not even narrowed to a specific named department.
I consider all this when looking at all sources. A report from one source, will give me things to go search for at other sources to get that slant or maybe further information.
News sources have been biased for all time. Many are severely biased now. Many are self censored terribly. On a corporate and individual journalist level. Reality becomes ever more difficult to surmise.
The CIA, NSA, etc… all very intently scan all sources. Filtering information in some of the ways I have mentioned. Do not limit your scanning of information to a few sources that may put you in an echo chamber.
Don’t believe all you read, see. But try to see from various angles.
In the case of our dear comrad I was thinking less the kind of high you get from smoking weed and more something along the lines of what you’d get mixing cocaine, meth, and paint thinner. Hell, maybe throw in a joint dipped in formaldehyde for good measure.
Reminds me of a conversation I had two years ago with an American teacher who was teaching his students Australia federated on 1 January 1900 because, as he says, he “was told it happened on the first day of the new century”. When I told him that last part was correct but he got the year wrong since the 20th century began on 1 January 1901. He told me, “There are two sides to that issue.” I responded, “There’s your side, and there’s what’s correct.”
ISTM that when it comes to Russian issues, there’s your side and then there’s what’s correct.
Look, there’s no doubt that you’re a troll. Also, there’s no way what you have on your user info page here is true. You bear all the hallmarks of, IME, some teen who’s glommed onto what he thinks is the cure-all for all of society’s ills and doesn’t look past it to the people who are theoretically implementing that cure-all. What has me responding to your nonsense in this thread is a hope, perhaps even a vain one, that some other teen who reads your nonsense will see through it thanks to mine and others’ responses and not turn into the complete Putin-loving jackass you are.
I think there is right and wrong on many sides. That includes Russia and others, long before and during this.
I actually think Ukraine has been used and abused by outside and internal forces terribly. Internally by a succession of bad governance. Be it pro Russian, Pro Western or Pro basically nasty things. Government with a high level of corruption and influenced by Russian and Western interests. That left the Ukraine peoples interests far behind. It has held the country back. Disrupted it in many ways.
I think Zelensky may have personally wanted to break that trend. But got tangled up in the same old mess. It finally came to a head. I was hoping it would not be war. Not invasion. I did not think Russia would invade. But it did. I don’t think Ukraine is the bad guy. It is the victim. The power game of West East is the bad guy. It plays out victimizing various countries. The big players using other countries as the battlefields.
But I do look at the situation as factually as I can. Sometimes Ukraine gets a win. Sometimes Russia gets one. MIC always wins.
It is an ugly geopolitical game. I would be happy to see Russian forces retreat all the way back to the prewar borders. The three areas that had internal desires for a different state of being hold verified referendums. And Russia and NATO come to some mutual understanding of their security issues.
In my perfect world. Everybody would just stay within their borders and try and get along. But they don’t.
Then you are probably better off just reporting on the western sources. Their agreement with what is said by RT is largely coincidental.
Yes they do, but they don’t actually accept anything they report as the truth. The only use of Russian sources is that they let you know what the Russian government wants people to believe. Not what is true, not even what the Russian government believes is true, but what the Russian government wants you to believe is true. There is some useful hints that can be gained by studying this, for example is they say that they hear intel that the Ukrainian forces may try to destroy the dam, then it may mean that they are considering blowing up the dam and blaming it on Ukraine, or it might be a double bluff in that they want to use it as a veiled threat that they could blow up the dam, so you should tread carefully. But there is no point in using it as a primary source since the only times it is accurate are those coincidental times when the truth happens to be what they want people to believe.
I think that this has some truth to it, particularly under Trump where Zelensky was strong armed to be an Political pawn for Trumps interests. But the blame does not fall on both sides equally. A home security salesman, and a rapist home invader are both trying to manipulate a home owner into doing something to for their own purposes, but they are not equivalent. The West did not start a war, they did not want a war, they viewed a war in Ukraine as a very very bad thing. They didn’t even really want the obligation of defending Ukraine. Ukraine wanted us more involved in their affairs because Russia came in and took a big portion of their country and looked like it might want the whole thing. (and it turns out it did).
But in any case none of this is relevant to the question of whether to trust Russian sources. Even if the US government did have a bad ulterior agenda and some how the US was primarily to blame for the war. It would still be the case that Russian media would be less reliable than the US media. Because if NPR or ABC or BBC says something that the US government doesn’t like, reporters don’t fired, or arrested or killed.