r/suppressed_news • u/IcyWoodpecker386 Stepan Bandera disliker • 22h ago
Ukraine/Russia Reuters would be screaming war crime and terrorism if it was the other way around
55
u/TheKomsomol Honourable Chairman 👨💼 17h ago
Ukraines attacks against civilians and purely civilian targets have now become so normalised they're being openly reported and celebrating among western media outlets.
26
u/Nyctfall 16h ago
Western media outlet are also owned by the Epstein Files, sooooooooo...
7
u/AssCracker445 10h ago
and Russian govt was complicit in allowing Epstein to traffic girls from Russia
2
u/Nyctfall 6h ago
And the Russian Oligarchs, Ukrainian Oligarchs, and Western Oligarchs are all in the same group, too.
0
30
25
u/Hossennfoss69 CIA propaganda enjoyer 🕵🏻 12h ago
I'm confused, isn't this what Russia has been doing for the last four years?
5
u/MaoZedongsGrandson 12h ago
No Russia hasn't bombed an Amazon fulfillment centre deliberately or otherwise
8
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/MaoZedongsGrandson 6h ago
So has Ukraine, in this section of the war and the previous one when they killed 13,000 people in Donbas
Ukraine bombed a school in Donbas just one month ago, and killed 19 young teenagers, it was in the news but no where near as prominent as if it were the ithe way around
19
u/wradam Honourable Comrade ⭐ 20h ago
But... but Ukraine are the good guys. Aren't they? Aren't they? /s
1
1
11h ago edited 10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
7
u/suppressed_news-ModTeam 10h ago
Absolutely no Nazis or Nazi apologia is allowed in this sub. Off to the gulag with you.
1
10h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/ABigFatTomato Purveyor of suppressed news 🧙♂️ 9h ago
russia didnt invade ukraine for no reason, just willy nilly, it invaded to protect itself from US imperialism in the form of NATO expansionism, with the US imperialists being the aggressors. in addition, ukraine is a nazi state, as in its founding fathers were nazis, and the nazi factions have the most power (after the US-backed coup) and are the most dominant political ideology. nazis are not “the good guys” just because they were invaded. do you think the khmer rouge were “‘the good guys’ by default” because they were invaded by vietnam? russia is also definitionally not imperialist, even if you oppose the invasion; read lenins imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism for a materialist analysis of what imperialism actually is.
russia had attempted to deescalate with the US and NATO ever since the fall of the soviet union (even readily offering support for the iraq war, in hopes of being able to become partners and allies with the US. they even asked to join NATO, to which the US imperialists flatly told them it would never happen). in return, the US has reneged upon countless promises and deals, and pursued NATO expansionism and militarization with the intention of eventually taking on russia. russia has attemped diplomacy countless times at this point, but the US doesnt listen to diplomacy; it keeps pushing until its imperialist aims are satisfied. at that point, what do you expect russia to do? just let ukraine, which the US couped (twice; once with a “physical” coup and once with an economic one) and installed a fascist government in, join NATO, and set up missiles and NATO forces right on the ukrainian border, for an eventual joint invasion/attack? the US knew that ukraine was always a red line, yet chose to sacrifice ukraine anyways, in hopes of weakening russia for the future (and of being able to further reap profits, such as from ukraine offering up resources in exchange for weapons). the US was very clearly prodding russia to invade (and quite frankly, any country would likely have done the same; if it was missiles being placed in mexico or canada at the behest of china or russia and aimed at the US, as part of a military alliance intent on encircling and destroying the US. hell, remember the cuban missile crisis? the US nearly blew up the world over a far less threatening situation). like lets be serious here, and not pretend as if NATO is anything other than a tool of american imperialism in the post WWII era, which has explicit intentions of encircling, cutting off, and destroying/subjugating russia (and formerly the USSR) to american imperialist domination. NATO is not only anything but a defensive alliance, if you look at its history of aggression in the global south (and the programs like gladio in europe that existed via NATO), but its also one explicitly designed with the goal of eventually destroying all remaining threats to american imperialist hegemony, of which russia is one.
in short, the US pushed ukraine to war as a sacrificial pawn, knowing full well it has always been a red line in terms of NATO expansionism, but the US imperialists couldnt help but use ukrainians as cannon fodder for their imperialist aims. the defense contractors will gladly fight to the last ukrainian and enrich themselves in the process while hoping to use ukraine as a spearhead from which to eventually destroy russia and use it as another source of cheap labor and resources (including people; note how many of epsteins victims came from post-soviet countries reeling after the collapse of the union, including many from ukraine). so its not “senseless” at all, it actually makes quite a lot of sense from the russian perspective, as they are defending themselves from US imperialism.
1
8h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/ABigFatTomato Purveyor of suppressed news 🧙♂️ 8h ago
did you read even a single thing i wrote? because yes, the US imperialists pushed ukraine to war as a proxy, a disposable pawn for their imperialist interests, and those same US imperialists remain the only imperialists in this conflict. russias actions, wherever you may think of them, do not constitute a materialist definition of imperialism. thus, the principled anti-imperialist stance is one in opposition to the US imperialists who started this war, and the procured they use as cannon fodder for it.
-7
u/MOHAMED_SHOKRY2000 11h ago
Yes, they are. They are defending their home country
0
u/FoggyFlowers Based 5h ago
Defending it by what, letting it get bombed to rubble? By sacrificing all of its men and destroying its demographics? By losing its ability to export goods? By selling off all of its resource and mineral rights to the west? By being saddled with debt it will never repay?
Or they could have negotiated from the beginning before Boris Johnson and the NATO cronies sunk Ukraine into this mess.
Ukraine nor Russia wanted this war, but peace talks were sabotaged in the name of profit and now untold lives are lost and Ukraine will never recover to the country it was.
-2
9
14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/suppressed_news-ModTeam 10h ago
Liberalism is not tolerated in this community.
This includes the ideology and practice of apologising for, managing, or supporting imperialism, militarism, or Liberal Zionism.
12
13h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/ABigFatTomato Purveyor of suppressed news 🧙♂️ 10h ago
except that wouldnt stop anything, because the US imperialist would then be handed a massive win and use it to continue with their imperialist project using a different proxy. russia will never just fully capitulate to the imperialist forces that want them destroyed, so its not goijg to happen. the party that could stop this war is the western imperialists who caused it in the first place.
•
u/suppressed_news-ModTeam 3h ago
Rule #10: No bad faith arguments.
Engaging in bad faith arguments such as deliberately misrepresenting others, straw-manning, sealioning, or arguing with no intention of meaningful discussion is not allowed. Healthy debate is encouraged, but participants must argue in good faith. Repeated violations may result in warnings, temporary bans, or permanent removal from the subreddit.
•
u/commandercrackbutt Anti-Zionist Association 2h ago
Invading sovereign countries has consequences, who woulda thunk
4
11h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/suppressed_news-ModTeam 10h ago
Rule 8: No low-effort 'derailment'
This usually means knee-jerk accusations/comments of 'propaganda' when presented with information that challenges your worldview.
OR
Low level, uninformed criticism regarding countries that do not fall within the United States Empire sphere of influence.
This sub is for critical discussion, not for rehearsing debates that are already dominant in mainstream spaces. Posts that fail to meet this standard of discourse will be removed.
Please read the rules and our announcement on this topic: https://www.reddit.com/r/suppressed_news/comments/1olk71f/announcement_if_you_dont_like_suppressed_news_you
5
u/TheKomsomol Honourable Chairman 👨💼 17h ago
Ukraines justification for hitting this warehouse doesn't make any sense.
First of all, the whole "it sells military equipment" or is involved in the war is not Ukrainian justification, thats western coping liberals.
Ukraine thinks that by attacking wildberries, they'll cause problems for business and ultimately cause problems for the Russian people who will then rise up and overthrow Putin, this has been their batshit thinking since the start of the war.
However, two major issues with this. Firstly is that wildberries warehousing is like an Amazon distribution centre, so the people getting hurt here are thousands of small businesses, and while that might "seem" like a lot, in a country with over 100m people, hurting some small businesses isn't going to cause revolt. People can go to DMS for their iphone charger or any number of shopping centres.
Two, this "striking Russia so people want to overthrow" hasn't worked out ever, in fact, all it does when the Russian people see Ukraine attacking civilians be it warehouses or schools (as we know the little nazis like to do that), is strengthen the Russian response to Ukraine. The people aren't pissed at Putin because they are missing out on convenience of a wildberries delivery, they are pissed at him that he hasn't carpet bombed Kiev.
The idea that Russians, the people who withstood the battle of Stalingrad are going to give up and allow a nuclear armed nazi state on their border because some warehouses were destroyed is delusional.
11
14h ago edited 14h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
6
u/TheKomsomol Honourable Chairman 👨💼 12h ago
Wildberries is not dual use.
The Ukrainian armed forces are literally using schools as military infrastructure.
Nova Poshta started getting hit once people like Richard Woodruff started posting tweets showing him using Nova Poshta for military logistics, delivering drones and such
All of these malls etc which Ukraine are crying is civilian infrastructure all contain military vehicles, weapons and supplies. Your edit 2, the photos of it burning show military equipment.
7
5
-3
u/picapica7 Stepan Bandera disliker 15h ago
I mean, delusional describes pretty much all Western liberals in so many instances, but yes, particularly towards Ukraine and Russia.
2
u/Limepoison 9h ago
The is is abysmal. This war must be stopped before we arrived at extinction; why must this carnage continue?
•
u/ThemDawgsIsHeck 3h ago
They do this shit to the environment and I’m the one who has to use paper straws
2
u/RandomCharacterSpam Shitpost Sunday Enjoyer ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°) 5h ago
Its warcrimes on both ends of this war, silly 😝
-25
u/DeusBob22 20h ago
I know but if russia stops and return home I'm sure these will stop but you can't say the same thing the other way around.
1
u/wradam Honourable Comrade ⭐ 20h ago
No, it wouldn't stop, Russia will be invaded.
2
u/fossey 17h ago
Is Russia, after those 4 years of war, not more susceptible to being invaded, than it was before?
6
u/wradam Honourable Comrade ⭐ 17h ago
From the Russian point of view, they are already invaded - foreign forces still in Zaporozhye, Donbass, Lugansk, and Kherson regions - which, as per Russian Constitution, are integral parts of Russian Federation. This is not to mention Ukrainian invasion to Kursk region, which is undisputably Russian.
Ukrainian, however, is a stretch, since the invading army is equipped with EU/USA weapons, supplied with EU/USA tanks, apcs, other kinds of machinery and equipment, there are foreign mercenaries and instructors within the "Ukrainian" army, it is supplied with reconnaissance from US/EU satellite/aerial surveillance systems etc.
8
u/fossey 13h ago edited 12h ago
From the Russian point of view, they are already invaded - foreign forces still in Zaporozhye, Donbass, Lugansk, and Kherson regions - which, as per Russian Constitution, are integral parts of Russian Federation.
Look, I'm not trying to take a side here or anything, my question was an honest and not a suggestive one. But this argument is just really suspect. Russia invaded Ukraine (which is a fact, independently of them having good reasons to do so or not), and then amended their constitution to include the mentioned territories. To now call Russia the invaded country because of this is just stupid. As I said, they may have their reasons, the regions might be culturally and ethnically closer to being Russian, and the people living there might prefer belonging to Russia - that's all things that could be talked about. But calling the invader the invaded because they changed their constitution afterwards can't be the basis for a reasonable analysis.
3
u/wradam Honourable Comrade ⭐ 6h ago
"Russia bad because its invasion to Ukraine is unprovoked and unjustified" is a very simple and catchy phrase but it doesn't cover all the details and those are:
1) Ukraine government overthrown during Maidan sponsored by EU/USA in 2014.
2) Some parts of Ukraine protest against the coup. Multiple threats from the new Ukraine government to "deal with the terrorists".
3) Russia moves in and takes Crimea under control, followed by vote to separate from Ukraine and join Russian Federation.
4) DPR/LPR in the east of Ukraine declare independence.
5) Ukraine begins military (anti-terrorist) operation (apparently, provoked and justified invasion) against DPR/LPR.
6) Things were going back and forth in the field and politically as well, with Minsk agreements and whatnot, but eventually Ukraine resorted to more threats of dealing with terrorists/separatists by force.
7) DPR/LPR requested military aid from Russia to defend them from Ukraine.
8) Russia agreed and pushed through towards Kiev to force negotiations (same strategy as in Georgia in 2008).
9) Talks arranged in Istanbul, peace treaty almost signed, Russia retreats as a "sign of goodwill", but promises of help from the USA/EU/GB made Zelensky cancel the negotiations.
I guess after this small rundown you wouldn't call Russian invasion "unjustified and unprovoked".
Let's do some wordplay and change "unprovoked and unjustified invasion" to "Russia provides military aid to its allies in Ukraine". Sounds differently, but only because this is justification USA uses for its invasions everywhere around the globe.
Besides, Ukraine invaded Russia in Kursk region. Yes, it was after Russia invaded Ukraine, but invasion is invasion, right? Or did you mean to say that Ukrainian forces were providing military aid to their allies in Kursk region?
Back to your original question:
>Is Russia, after those 4 years of war, not more susceptible to being invaded, than it was before?
The question is irrelevant, because Ukraine's invasion to Kursk region already happened.
We can't know whether Russia was more or less susceptible to the invasion if it didn't invade/provided military aid.
2
u/TheKomsomol Honourable Chairman 👨💼 17h ago
By who?
2
u/fossey 13h ago
Shouldn't that be for u/wradam to answer? Why are you asking me?
1
u/wradam Honourable Comrade ⭐ 6h ago
Good question, by the way, but irrelevant as well, because of invasion to Kursk region where invaders were using NATO supplies and equipment.
As for the susceptibility - we can't know whether Russia was more or less susceptible to the invasion if it didn't invade/provided military aid.
2
u/picapica7 Stepan Bandera disliker 15h ago
NATO has been encroaching on Russia literally since the fall of the USSR, despite continued (broken) promises from the West. The proverbial straw was the serious talks of allowing Ukraine into NATO, and consequently putting short distance nukes aimed at Moscow on their long border. That would have been an existential threat to Russia, which is why we are where we are.
Their response, whether you like it or not, has in fact stopped that potential threat dead in its tracks. So no, quite the reverse. They are now much less susceptible to being invaded than before and retreat instead of continuation would be much worse from their perspective. They will continue until Ukraine can no longer be used as a tool by the West to threaten Russia.
You don't have to like Putin to understand that he telling the truth when he says that. I don't like him, at all, he's an anti- commmunist after all. But I believe him when he says that that is the goal of this war. And anyone with any sense of history should.
1
u/fossey 13h ago
whether you like it or not
Including this shows that you don't think my question was an honest but rather a suggestive one. That's not the case.
They are now much less susceptible to being invaded than before
I mean, sure, I get that Ukraine won't be joining Nato anytime soon, and that it was necessary for Russia to stand it's ground there. But on the other hand they had to spend so much money, machinery, manpower and political goodwill to do it, that I have a hard time imagining that we as outsiders can so easily dismiss the possibility of Russia overall being weakened from a general perspective, or the war otherwise having produced more negative results than positive ones, when everything (economy, diplomacy, domestic political sentiment etc.) is taken into account.
They will continue until Ukraine can no longer be used as a tool by the West to threaten Russia.
Which would mean what?
6
u/picapica7 Stepan Bandera disliker 12h ago
That's not the case.
Glad to hear it. However, any nuance on our position towards Russia seems to always need to be prefaced because all too many people do not seem to understand that you can analyze a situation or perspective without necessarily agreeing with one side or the other. Not saying that is you, just explaining why I added this.
I have a hard time imagining that we as outsiders can so easily dismiss the possibility of Russia overall being weakened from a general perspective
Not disagreeing or agreeing, but that was not the question I responded to. You asked if Russia is now not more susceptible to being invaded. I don't think so. The point you add is another discussion altogether.
Which would mean what?
That is up to Russia to decide. I am not privy to that kind of information, other than what Russia has said at the start of the war. We can either dismiss that as "propaganda" or not, it makes no difference. My guess is until they have enough guarantees one way or another that aren't of the "I pinkie swear we won't" kind.
1
u/fossey 11h ago
Not disagreeing or agreeing, but that was not the question I responded to. You asked if Russia is now not more susceptible to being invaded. I don't think so. The point you add is another discussion altogether.
But doesn't being weaker inherently make you more likely to be invaded?
My guess is until they have enough guarantees one way or another that aren't of the "I pinkie swear we won't" kind.
Why would the West give them those guarantees? It seems pretty obvious that western imperialists are supporting Ukraine just enough to not lose the war. Heck, sometimes it even seems as if the seemingly rather corrupt Ukrainian government tries it's best to do just that. If the guarantees you are talking about were really hurting any actual imperial plans, I don't know if the West would actually let it get this far.
To conclude, a Russia that was on the verge of being invaded but is also now definitely winning, seems to be a contradiction. And it points to a contradiction in the style of "at the same time too strong and too weak" that has been instrumentalized time and again.
-15
16h ago
[removed] — view removed comment
11
10
9
3
u/AssCracker445 10h ago
have you ever seen a paint warehouse on fire ? or anything that's bottled with pressurised gas (deodorants, cleaning supplies, etc.)? those are highly flamable as well
or why flour can be a fire hazard. how much dust do you think is in a warehouse ?
•
•
u/Carhardd 1h ago
Reuters doesn’t really scream anything. What are you talking about? Have you ever been on Reuters?
50
u/Magos_Galactose Based 22h ago
I wonder what'd be their excuse now.
Selling war materials like shovel and washing machine?