Lately , I've began to question what we know about the thinking of our fellow citizens . Certainly the Traditional Media and Billionaire controlled "Social Media " twist and lie about public opinion too . And it's tough to judge for ourselves -by peering at our increasingly controlled and controllable devices .
I'd argue that Zelensky was a CIA project from the start, he simply lied in the election campaign, his handlers only ever planned achieving all their goals, no compromise.
- The road to this war was opened with the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989/1990.
- I know that Germany & France "didn't like" the expansion of NATO and "resisted" this expansion. That's why I doubt that Germany + France agreed that "Minsk"should be implemented to buy time for Ukraine.
- There was already something going on in the early 1990s that - in hindsight - already predicted "in which direction" the US was moving. It had to do with the establishment of the socalled "East European Development Bank (EEDB)". The US insisted that Russia would be excluded from this EEDB.
- Indeed, the NATO summit in Bucharest (april 2008) was the sign of "more trouble".
The US constructed a narrative, a sort of brand name like "Winston takes good as a cigarette should" to justify its own agression and pose an existential threat to the Russians. Your take its very similar to Gordon Hahn's four points that explain the runup to war. But how did they pack the EU with this pitiful bunch of morons who are ruling as "caretakers"? Whatever, the Americans through their greed, has recreated the Russian superpower and allied with china at that.
Are people in general really totally aware that a US-Kiev coup took place in february 2014, which brought a hateful US, and later EU supported anti-Russian clique to power?
People in general are totally unaware of such facts of reality and they are uninterested in it.
But: they know a lot about the n-th "celebrity" loser of the moment, they know a lot about whatever fashion is being peddled to them on anti-social media, and they care a lot about whatever mindless dancing show distraction or whatever collection of yesterdays losers is that has been assembled on an Island on "reality TV".
That is how we end up in the current situation, where a few zealots cant set off nuclear war and nobody even thinks they should be fired.
Your article contains several points that could be seen as manipulative or presenting biased perspectives. Below are some examples where manipulation might be present:
1. Framing and loaded language
The article uses emotionally charged words and phrases like "lie," "demonised," "weaponised," "toppled," "US-backed fascist groups," and "destruction of Ukraine." These terms are designed to provoke an emotional response rather than presenting a neutral analysis.
Example: Referring to NATO's actions as a "NATO-backed coup" in 2014 is a contentious statement and dismisses the complexity of Ukraine's political developments during that time.
Effect: Such language frames events in a way that aligns with a particular narrative and discourages nuanced or opposing views.
2. Selective use of facts and historical context
The article highlights the CIA Director William Burns' 2008 warning about NATO expansion but omits other perspectives or actions that Russia has taken, such as its earlier aggression in Georgia (2008) or the annexation of Crimea (2014).
It claims that NATO expansion was known to "likely trigger a war" without fully addressing Ukraine's agency or desire for closer ties with NATO and the EU.
Effect: By selectively presenting facts, the article crafts a narrative that places sole blame on NATO and the West, minimizing other factors like Russian geopolitical ambitions.
3. Oversimplification of complex events
The narrative simplifies the Minsk agreements, portraying them as solely a ruse by Western countries to "buy time to arm Ukraine," ignoring the challenges both sides faced in implementing the agreements.
It presents the war as entirely a product of NATO actions, omitting Russia's own role in destabilizing Ukraine through covert and overt actions since 2014.
Effect: Oversimplification reduces a complex geopolitical conflict into a binary of aggressor (NATO/US) versus defender (Russia), which distorts the reality.
4. Assigning intentions without evidence
The article claims that "the US responded by sabotaging peace negotiations in Istanbul" and that "the US preferred a long war to weaken Russia." These statements are presented as fact but lack concrete evidence to substantiate them.
Similarly, it claims NATO's motivations are "altruistic" only in media narratives, implying deceit without providing direct proof.
Effect: Assigning motives without evidence encourages readers to accept a conspiracy-like interpretation of events.
5. Misrepresentation of diplomacy and public sentiment
The article states that "only 20% of Ukrainians desired NATO membership" in 2014. While accurate at that time, it ignores how public opinion in Ukraine shifted significantly after Russia's annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in Donbas.
It portrays Zelensky's shift from a peace platform as entirely due to "American-financed NGOs" and "US-backed fascist groups," downplaying internal Ukrainian dynamics and the impact of Russia’s actions.
Effect: This misrepresentation creates a one-sided view of the conflict, ignoring Ukraine’s evolving preferences and sovereignty.
6. Moral absolutism and dismissal of opposing views
The article claims that "media that lied about every important aspect of the war... have no moral credibility." This dismisses the possibility of legitimate differences in interpretation or errors in reporting.
It uses a Hitler analogy critique to discredit comparisons, without addressing why some analysts make such comparisons (e.g., concerns over territorial aggression).
Effect: Such rhetoric shuts down debate and delegitimizes opposing perspectives, making diplomacy and discussion harder.
Conclusion
While the article raises important critiques about NATO, US policies, and the role of diplomacy, its use of manipulative techniques such as loaded language, selective facts, and oversimplifications makes it a biased account. A more balanced analysis would consider the actions and motivations of all parties, including Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the US, while acknowledging the complexities of the conflict.
Thanks, ChatGPT. For one, the Maidan coup being a CIA coup is well-documented, including by US embassy workers’ witness statements and a published transcript between the US ambassador and Victoria Nuland (look it up on the BBC). Won’t bother with the rest of ChatGPT’s message here. Perfect summary of the existing baseless three-letter-agency propaganda though, well done 👌🏻
The term "coup" implies a small, organized group forcibly overthrowing the government, often without popular support. In contrast, the Maidan protests involved millions of Ukrainians across the country demanding change, particularly in response to then-President Yanukovych’s rejection of an EU association agreement and allegations of corruption.
Respecting the will of the Ukrainian people must also be the reason why elections have not been held since May 2024, with an illegitimate government and president running the country (who btw, was elected on a ‘peace with Russia’ platform). It must also be the reason why 11 opposition parties are banned, and journalists (incl. foreigners) unsupportive of war propaganda are killed. Democracy is visibly doing great in Ukraine. Polite discourse is indeed welcome, but no amount of chatgpt will save you from the truth getting out. Reality has a way of catching up, no matter how much time and money you spend subverting a population.
please try to add your comment to chatGPT and add "where are manipulations in the comment above?"
and you will get
The comment above contains several potential manipulations and biases, which can be broken down into specific techniques often used in rhetoric or propaganda. Here are some examples:
1. Selective Presentation of Facts
Claim: "Elections have not been held since May 2024."
While true, the omission of the context (e.g., the ongoing war and martial law in Ukraine) creates a misleading impression. In wartime, elections are often postponed for logistical and security reasons. Without this context, the statement becomes one-sided.
Claim: "An illegitimate government and president running the country."
Labeling the government "illegitimate" without providing evidence or addressing the legal framework in which the government operates is a subjective assertion designed to discredit.
2. Mischaracterization of Political Positions
Claim: "(who btw, was elected on a ‘peace with Russia’ platform)."
While President Volodymyr Zelenskyy campaigned on improving relations and achieving peace, this oversimplifies his platform and ignores the fact that Russia launched a full-scale invasion in 2022, changing the political and military landscape drastically.
3. False Equivalency
Claim: "11 opposition parties are banned."
This statement omits key context: the parties in question have been accused of pro-Russian activities during the war. While banning parties is controversial, leaving out this context distorts the reasoning behind the action.
Claim: "Journalists (incl. foreigners) unsupportive of war propaganda are killed."
This is a sweeping generalization without specific examples or evidence. It implies systemic targeting of dissenting journalists but lacks supporting details.
4. Loaded Language
Terms like "illegitimate government," "war propaganda," and "subverting a population" are emotionally charged and imply wrongdoing or malintent without substantiating these claims.
5. Straw Man Argument
Claim: "Democracy is visibly doing great in Ukraine."
This sarcastic remark creates a straw man by oversimplifying the complex challenges Ukraine faces during wartime. Democracy in a wartime context is different from peacetime, and the statement dismisses those nuances.
6. Appeal to Conspiracy
Claim: "No amount of chatgpt will save you from the truth getting out."
This insinuates that there is a deliberate attempt to suppress the "truth," which is a classic appeal to conspiracy.
Summary
The comment employs selective facts, omits crucial context, uses emotionally charged language, and presents subjective opinions as facts. While it raises valid concerns about democracy during wartime, it does so in a way that appears more focused on discrediting Ukraine than engaging in an objective discussion.
A lie is a lie. its plain english. More clear word than euphemisms such as "falsehood" or "disinformation".
A US-backed fascist group is well, exactly what it says. The US has been doing exactly that for years - backing fascists of all stripes...while talking about "democracy" and "freedom".
This post sounds like sock puppet messaging from the US backed fascist groups that have been spreading lies for years now.
Indeed you offer what any defense lawyer defending the indefensible would do: muddy the waters, dazzle with bullshit and make a pretense of considered logic. Your duplicitous, pseudo-scholarly diatribe is patently false, not even a shred of truth in it to be found. Your "client" is guilty on all charges, and the punishment the loss of sole global hegemonic status since the end of the Cold War. AmeriKa's hollow elete celebrate their ultimate demise, not with dignity but whimpering.
The annexation of Crimea was done during the 2014 Civil War. From Russians' perspecive, they were merely taking back what should be theirs to begin with. Furthermore, Russians fully understand NATO may soon take over Sevastopol. Maybe NATO did not have such a plan, but military (and political) actions consider the capabilities of the opponent. It would be too late once US Marines landed on Crimea. You think Prof Diesen over-played the role of NGO forcing his hands and ignored other domestic factors. I guess you meant a significant portion of the population did tilt west, EU, and maybe even NATO. but I read it as not mentioning the history of Banderalists and how certain Ukrainian people who joined NAZI and committed war crimes not only toward Russians but also to their fellow Ukrainians.
As for other points I am too lazy to discuss, but your statements certainly have their merits. To the minimal, we shall always consider the two sides of coins. And only so, would we truly see the faces on the other side of the coin: Not Zelensky, a Ukrainian whose mother tongue was Russian and has some Jewish genes in his blood, but the faceless evils of the Western Oligarchs who had controlled the Western Politics for several hundreds of years.
Wording differences can certainly be argued, but whether a certain word has certain connotation is also a cultural event. Such wording differences seemed to be inevitable once you started reasoning from the time NATO moved east after they promised not to. If you started reasoning only from the time the Ukraine government used military forces to suppress eastern Ukrainians to force them to give up the Russian language. Yes, then Russia had interfered and prevented the Ukrainian government from doing ethnic and cultural cleansing.
The comment contains several instances of manipulative language and reasoning.
1. Historical Revisionism and Loaded Framing
"Annexation of Crimea was done during the 2014 Civil War": Referring to the events in 2014 as a "civil war" downplays Russia's active role in fostering and supporting separatist movements in eastern Ukraine and its direct military intervention.
"Merely taking back what should be theirs to begin with": This phrase adopts a Russian nationalist narrative, presenting annexation as a justified reclamation without acknowledging international law or Ukraine's sovereignty.
2. Whataboutism and Deflection
"Maybe NATO did not have such a plan, but military (and political) actions consider the capabilities of the opponent.": This suggests hypothetical NATO aggression to justify Russia's actions, shifting the focus from Russia's violation of international law to speculative NATO threats.
"It would be too late once US Marines landed on Crimea.": This is an unsubstantiated scenario used to rationalize preemptive aggression, leveraging fear and hypothetical outcomes.
3. Appeals to Bias
"History of Banderalists and how certain Ukrainian people who joined NAZI...": This invokes historical grievances to generalize about modern Ukrainian politics and justify Russian actions. It conflates past events with contemporary dynamics, often used to vilify Ukraine as a whole.
"Ethnic and cultural cleansing": Accusing Ukraine of attempting "ethnic and cultural cleansing" is an emotionally charged and exaggerated claim. While there were language and cultural policy disputes, framing it in such extreme terms manipulates the reader's perception.
4. False Balance
"We shall always consider the two sides of coins.": While considering multiple perspectives is valuable, the framing here creates a false equivalence between Russia's internationally condemned aggression and Ukraine's actions as a sovereign state.
5. Conspiracy Theories
"Faceless evils of the Western Oligarchs...": This introduces a vague, conspiratorial narrative about Western elites controlling politics for centuries. Such claims lack evidence and are designed to shift blame onto an abstract, unnamed enemy.
6. Cultural Relativism as Excuse
"Wording differences can certainly be argued...": This relativism minimizes the impact of certain phrases and actions, portraying them as subjective interpretations rather than deliberate acts with real consequences.
In conclusion, the comment uses manipulative tactics like historical revisionism, deflection, emotional appeals, and conspiracy theories to rationalize Russia's actions while delegitimizing Ukraine and Western responses.
Thanks Professor Diessen, but facts don't deter the Morons promoting this war, or the false narratives surrounding it, however it is necessary that people like you, keep informing the broader public on various platforms as you are currently.
Truth can bring an end to this war. While 100’000 of thousands died the politicians who paraded the lie about Russia as the aggressor won’t have a say in negotiations .
Unfortunately, too many people are buying a false narrative...
Lately , I've began to question what we know about the thinking of our fellow citizens . Certainly the Traditional Media and Billionaire controlled "Social Media " twist and lie about public opinion too . And it's tough to judge for ourselves -by peering at our increasingly controlled and controllable devices .
I'd argue that Zelensky was a CIA project from the start, he simply lied in the election campaign, his handlers only ever planned achieving all their goals, no compromise.
Precisely.
Exceptional America gives itself the right to lie, cheat, and steal. King David taught them well.
- The road to this war was opened with the fall of the Iron Curtain in 1989/1990.
- I know that Germany & France "didn't like" the expansion of NATO and "resisted" this expansion. That's why I doubt that Germany + France agreed that "Minsk"should be implemented to buy time for Ukraine.
- There was already something going on in the early 1990s that - in hindsight - already predicted "in which direction" the US was moving. It had to do with the establishment of the socalled "East European Development Bank (EEDB)". The US insisted that Russia would be excluded from this EEDB.
- Indeed, the NATO summit in Bucharest (april 2008) was the sign of "more trouble".
The US constructed a narrative, a sort of brand name like "Winston takes good as a cigarette should" to justify its own agression and pose an existential threat to the Russians. Your take its very similar to Gordon Hahn's four points that explain the runup to war. But how did they pack the EU with this pitiful bunch of morons who are ruling as "caretakers"? Whatever, the Americans through their greed, has recreated the Russian superpower and allied with china at that.
Are people in general really totally aware that a US-Kiev coup took place in february 2014, which brought a hateful US, and later EU supported anti-Russian clique to power?
People in general are totally unaware of such facts of reality and they are uninterested in it.
But: they know a lot about the n-th "celebrity" loser of the moment, they know a lot about whatever fashion is being peddled to them on anti-social media, and they care a lot about whatever mindless dancing show distraction or whatever collection of yesterdays losers is that has been assembled on an Island on "reality TV".
That is how we end up in the current situation, where a few zealots cant set off nuclear war and nobody even thinks they should be fired.
They are, the ignorance is astounding.
That’s exactly how I saw the situation arise too Glen! Thanks
💯
Your article contains several points that could be seen as manipulative or presenting biased perspectives. Below are some examples where manipulation might be present:
1. Framing and loaded language
The article uses emotionally charged words and phrases like "lie," "demonised," "weaponised," "toppled," "US-backed fascist groups," and "destruction of Ukraine." These terms are designed to provoke an emotional response rather than presenting a neutral analysis.
Example: Referring to NATO's actions as a "NATO-backed coup" in 2014 is a contentious statement and dismisses the complexity of Ukraine's political developments during that time.
Effect: Such language frames events in a way that aligns with a particular narrative and discourages nuanced or opposing views.
2. Selective use of facts and historical context
The article highlights the CIA Director William Burns' 2008 warning about NATO expansion but omits other perspectives or actions that Russia has taken, such as its earlier aggression in Georgia (2008) or the annexation of Crimea (2014).
It claims that NATO expansion was known to "likely trigger a war" without fully addressing Ukraine's agency or desire for closer ties with NATO and the EU.
Effect: By selectively presenting facts, the article crafts a narrative that places sole blame on NATO and the West, minimizing other factors like Russian geopolitical ambitions.
3. Oversimplification of complex events
The narrative simplifies the Minsk agreements, portraying them as solely a ruse by Western countries to "buy time to arm Ukraine," ignoring the challenges both sides faced in implementing the agreements.
It presents the war as entirely a product of NATO actions, omitting Russia's own role in destabilizing Ukraine through covert and overt actions since 2014.
Effect: Oversimplification reduces a complex geopolitical conflict into a binary of aggressor (NATO/US) versus defender (Russia), which distorts the reality.
4. Assigning intentions without evidence
The article claims that "the US responded by sabotaging peace negotiations in Istanbul" and that "the US preferred a long war to weaken Russia." These statements are presented as fact but lack concrete evidence to substantiate them.
Similarly, it claims NATO's motivations are "altruistic" only in media narratives, implying deceit without providing direct proof.
Effect: Assigning motives without evidence encourages readers to accept a conspiracy-like interpretation of events.
5. Misrepresentation of diplomacy and public sentiment
The article states that "only 20% of Ukrainians desired NATO membership" in 2014. While accurate at that time, it ignores how public opinion in Ukraine shifted significantly after Russia's annexation of Crimea and its support for separatists in Donbas.
It portrays Zelensky's shift from a peace platform as entirely due to "American-financed NGOs" and "US-backed fascist groups," downplaying internal Ukrainian dynamics and the impact of Russia’s actions.
Effect: This misrepresentation creates a one-sided view of the conflict, ignoring Ukraine’s evolving preferences and sovereignty.
6. Moral absolutism and dismissal of opposing views
The article claims that "media that lied about every important aspect of the war... have no moral credibility." This dismisses the possibility of legitimate differences in interpretation or errors in reporting.
It uses a Hitler analogy critique to discredit comparisons, without addressing why some analysts make such comparisons (e.g., concerns over territorial aggression).
Effect: Such rhetoric shuts down debate and delegitimizes opposing perspectives, making diplomacy and discussion harder.
Conclusion
While the article raises important critiques about NATO, US policies, and the role of diplomacy, its use of manipulative techniques such as loaded language, selective facts, and oversimplifications makes it a biased account. A more balanced analysis would consider the actions and motivations of all parties, including Russia, Ukraine, NATO, and the US, while acknowledging the complexities of the conflict.
Thanks, ChatGPT. For one, the Maidan coup being a CIA coup is well-documented, including by US embassy workers’ witness statements and a published transcript between the US ambassador and Victoria Nuland (look it up on the BBC). Won’t bother with the rest of ChatGPT’s message here. Perfect summary of the existing baseless three-letter-agency propaganda though, well done 👌🏻
The term "coup" implies a small, organized group forcibly overthrowing the government, often without popular support. In contrast, the Maidan protests involved millions of Ukrainians across the country demanding change, particularly in response to then-President Yanukovych’s rejection of an EU association agreement and allegations of corruption.
Respecting the will of the Ukrainian people must also be the reason why elections have not been held since May 2024, with an illegitimate government and president running the country (who btw, was elected on a ‘peace with Russia’ platform). It must also be the reason why 11 opposition parties are banned, and journalists (incl. foreigners) unsupportive of war propaganda are killed. Democracy is visibly doing great in Ukraine. Polite discourse is indeed welcome, but no amount of chatgpt will save you from the truth getting out. Reality has a way of catching up, no matter how much time and money you spend subverting a population.
please try to add your comment to chatGPT and add "where are manipulations in the comment above?"
and you will get
The comment above contains several potential manipulations and biases, which can be broken down into specific techniques often used in rhetoric or propaganda. Here are some examples:
1. Selective Presentation of Facts
Claim: "Elections have not been held since May 2024."
While true, the omission of the context (e.g., the ongoing war and martial law in Ukraine) creates a misleading impression. In wartime, elections are often postponed for logistical and security reasons. Without this context, the statement becomes one-sided.
Claim: "An illegitimate government and president running the country."
Labeling the government "illegitimate" without providing evidence or addressing the legal framework in which the government operates is a subjective assertion designed to discredit.
2. Mischaracterization of Political Positions
Claim: "(who btw, was elected on a ‘peace with Russia’ platform)."
While President Volodymyr Zelenskyy campaigned on improving relations and achieving peace, this oversimplifies his platform and ignores the fact that Russia launched a full-scale invasion in 2022, changing the political and military landscape drastically.
3. False Equivalency
Claim: "11 opposition parties are banned."
This statement omits key context: the parties in question have been accused of pro-Russian activities during the war. While banning parties is controversial, leaving out this context distorts the reasoning behind the action.
Claim: "Journalists (incl. foreigners) unsupportive of war propaganda are killed."
This is a sweeping generalization without specific examples or evidence. It implies systemic targeting of dissenting journalists but lacks supporting details.
4. Loaded Language
Terms like "illegitimate government," "war propaganda," and "subverting a population" are emotionally charged and imply wrongdoing or malintent without substantiating these claims.
5. Straw Man Argument
Claim: "Democracy is visibly doing great in Ukraine."
This sarcastic remark creates a straw man by oversimplifying the complex challenges Ukraine faces during wartime. Democracy in a wartime context is different from peacetime, and the statement dismisses those nuances.
6. Appeal to Conspiracy
Claim: "No amount of chatgpt will save you from the truth getting out."
This insinuates that there is a deliberate attempt to suppress the "truth," which is a classic appeal to conspiracy.
Summary
The comment employs selective facts, omits crucial context, uses emotionally charged language, and presents subjective opinions as facts. While it raises valid concerns about democracy during wartime, it does so in a way that appears more focused on discrediting Ukraine than engaging in an objective discussion.
... and your point is? ......
A lie is a lie. its plain english. More clear word than euphemisms such as "falsehood" or "disinformation".
A US-backed fascist group is well, exactly what it says. The US has been doing exactly that for years - backing fascists of all stripes...while talking about "democracy" and "freedom".
This post sounds like sock puppet messaging from the US backed fascist groups that have been spreading lies for years now.
Indeed you offer what any defense lawyer defending the indefensible would do: muddy the waters, dazzle with bullshit and make a pretense of considered logic. Your duplicitous, pseudo-scholarly diatribe is patently false, not even a shred of truth in it to be found. Your "client" is guilty on all charges, and the punishment the loss of sole global hegemonic status since the end of the Cold War. AmeriKa's hollow elete celebrate their ultimate demise, not with dignity but whimpering.
👌🏻👌🏻🙌🏻🙌🏻🔥 [mic drop]
The Ukrainian Hasbara have arrived on the scene.
Who? Ray!
Well, well...... isn't this Ukro-hyena the runt of the litter!
The annexation of Crimea was done during the 2014 Civil War. From Russians' perspecive, they were merely taking back what should be theirs to begin with. Furthermore, Russians fully understand NATO may soon take over Sevastopol. Maybe NATO did not have such a plan, but military (and political) actions consider the capabilities of the opponent. It would be too late once US Marines landed on Crimea. You think Prof Diesen over-played the role of NGO forcing his hands and ignored other domestic factors. I guess you meant a significant portion of the population did tilt west, EU, and maybe even NATO. but I read it as not mentioning the history of Banderalists and how certain Ukrainian people who joined NAZI and committed war crimes not only toward Russians but also to their fellow Ukrainians.
As for other points I am too lazy to discuss, but your statements certainly have their merits. To the minimal, we shall always consider the two sides of coins. And only so, would we truly see the faces on the other side of the coin: Not Zelensky, a Ukrainian whose mother tongue was Russian and has some Jewish genes in his blood, but the faceless evils of the Western Oligarchs who had controlled the Western Politics for several hundreds of years.
Wording differences can certainly be argued, but whether a certain word has certain connotation is also a cultural event. Such wording differences seemed to be inevitable once you started reasoning from the time NATO moved east after they promised not to. If you started reasoning only from the time the Ukraine government used military forces to suppress eastern Ukrainians to force them to give up the Russian language. Yes, then Russia had interfered and prevented the Ukrainian government from doing ethnic and cultural cleansing.
The comment contains several instances of manipulative language and reasoning.
1. Historical Revisionism and Loaded Framing
"Annexation of Crimea was done during the 2014 Civil War": Referring to the events in 2014 as a "civil war" downplays Russia's active role in fostering and supporting separatist movements in eastern Ukraine and its direct military intervention.
"Merely taking back what should be theirs to begin with": This phrase adopts a Russian nationalist narrative, presenting annexation as a justified reclamation without acknowledging international law or Ukraine's sovereignty.
2. Whataboutism and Deflection
"Maybe NATO did not have such a plan, but military (and political) actions consider the capabilities of the opponent.": This suggests hypothetical NATO aggression to justify Russia's actions, shifting the focus from Russia's violation of international law to speculative NATO threats.
"It would be too late once US Marines landed on Crimea.": This is an unsubstantiated scenario used to rationalize preemptive aggression, leveraging fear and hypothetical outcomes.
3. Appeals to Bias
"History of Banderalists and how certain Ukrainian people who joined NAZI...": This invokes historical grievances to generalize about modern Ukrainian politics and justify Russian actions. It conflates past events with contemporary dynamics, often used to vilify Ukraine as a whole.
"Ethnic and cultural cleansing": Accusing Ukraine of attempting "ethnic and cultural cleansing" is an emotionally charged and exaggerated claim. While there were language and cultural policy disputes, framing it in such extreme terms manipulates the reader's perception.
4. False Balance
"We shall always consider the two sides of coins.": While considering multiple perspectives is valuable, the framing here creates a false equivalence between Russia's internationally condemned aggression and Ukraine's actions as a sovereign state.
5. Conspiracy Theories
"Faceless evils of the Western Oligarchs...": This introduces a vague, conspiratorial narrative about Western elites controlling politics for centuries. Such claims lack evidence and are designed to shift blame onto an abstract, unnamed enemy.
6. Cultural Relativism as Excuse
"Wording differences can certainly be argued...": This relativism minimizes the impact of certain phrases and actions, portraying them as subjective interpretations rather than deliberate acts with real consequences.
In conclusion, the comment uses manipulative tactics like historical revisionism, deflection, emotional appeals, and conspiracy theories to rationalize Russia's actions while delegitimizing Ukraine and Western responses.
Your Surname wouldn't happen to be Zelensky, would it???
Your Surname wouldn't happen to be Zelensky, would it???
be ashamed!
Absolutely stellar.
Keep on telling the truth, Glenn!
Thanks Professor Diessen, but facts don't deter the Morons promoting this war, or the false narratives surrounding it, however it is necessary that people like you, keep informing the broader public on various platforms as you are currently.
The result of American meddling or the meddling of American oligarchs this time the birth of a new superpower. Bravo.
Truth can bring an end to this war. While 100’000 of thousands died the politicians who paraded the lie about Russia as the aggressor won’t have a say in negotiations .
Can’t be more apt in summing up this horror show.
Okay, they perhaps deserve...
If so, they deserve... including worst scenarium...Unfortunately they will then take the rest of us with them in their downfall.