Yes, is the European public, who is supposed to be highly informed, totally ignorant? Are European people in general really unaware that a US supported coup took place in 2014, which transformed the neutrale Ukraine, not to an independent state as the ignorants naively think, but to a US-controlled frontline state (do ignorant people think that the US and EU pour hundreds of billions of dollars into UKraine so that the country can pursue an independent policy independent of the donors? - a coup that even the US/Nato supporting media wrote about?
A populace thats spends world record amounts of time on “social media” is guaranteed to be misinformed and unable to follow any consistent train of thought over time.
Furthermore every major European broadcaster, newspaper and media house is part of the coordinated narrative, spin and lies collaboration known as the Trusted News Initiative. They collude to bombard Europeans with lies and NATO propaganda.
The article contains several points that could be considered manipulative or misleading due to selective framing, cherry-picking facts, and using emotionally loaded language to influence the reader. Below are some areas of concern:
1. Selective Presentation of Facts
Claim: "Ukraine did not have any nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons in question were former Soviet nuclear weapons under the control of Moscow."
Manipulation: While technically true, this minimizes Ukraine's role in agreeing to transfer those weapons and ignores the strategic leverage Ukraine gave up by agreeing to denuclearize. This framing dismisses the significance of Ukraine's decision and the assurances it sought in return.
2. Cherry-Picking Commitments from the Budapest Memorandum
Claim: "NATO countries constantly ignore the first commitment but constantly refer to the second commitment."
Manipulation: The argument implies hypocrisy by NATO countries without considering the broader geopolitical context. It overlooks that NATO is not a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum and conflates its actions with those of the US and UK. This simplification ignores the complex interplay of international actors.
3. Emotional Framing
Claim: "The West interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions, and finally toppled the Ukrainian president to pull the country into NATO’s orbit."
Manipulation: This claim uses emotionally charged phrases like "toppled" and "pulled the country into NATO’s orbit" to suggest a deliberate and aggressive Western agenda. It downplays the internal dynamics of Ukraine, such as the widespread protests during the Euromaidan revolution, and overstates Western influence.
4. Questionable Legal Interpretations
Claim: "Under the principle of rebus sic stantibus, agreements should be upheld ‘provided things remain the same’ ... Russia was ‘entitled to ignore the earlier agreement.’"
Manipulation: The principle of rebus sic stantibus is being selectively applied here. While it allows for agreements to be reconsidered under radically changed circumstances, it is typically invoked in a legal framework, not unilaterally. This argument justifies Russia's actions without acknowledging international condemnation of the invasion.
5. False Equivalency
Claim: "The US freed itself from its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum ... Russia also abandoned it."
Manipulation: The article creates a false equivalency between Western actions (e.g., sanctions, promoting democracy) and Russia’s military invasion. While Western actions may be criticized, they do not equate to an outright violation of territorial sovereignty.
6. Misleading Dichotomy
Claim: "Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons ... or Ukraine will be in NATO."
Manipulation: This oversimplifies Ukraine's security options, ignoring the potential for alternative agreements or frameworks. The framing creates a false sense of inevitability, pushing readers to accept only these two extreme outcomes.
7. Misrepresentation of Majority Opinion
Claim: "The West claimed to support a ‘democratic revolution,’ despite being an unconstitutional coup that did not even enjoy majority support."
Manipulation: This disregards evidence of substantial public support for Euromaidan protests and frames the event as purely a Western-driven coup, which oversimplifies the situation and ignores the agency of Ukrainian citizens.
8. Smearing Alternative Views
Claim: "Criticising the narrative of the Budapest Memorandum does not entail ‘legitimising’ Russia’s invasion."
Manipulation: While true on the surface, this statement preemptively dismisses criticism of the article's narrative by framing potential critics as unfairly accusing the author of justifying Russia's actions.
When all trust, agreements and laws were violated in the past, on what grounds can there be a definite solution? MPO only a discontinuation of war can, the same goes for Israel and Palestine.
Yes, is the European public, who is supposed to be highly informed, totally ignorant? Are European people in general really unaware that a US supported coup took place in 2014, which transformed the neutrale Ukraine, not to an independent state as the ignorants naively think, but to a US-controlled frontline state (do ignorant people think that the US and EU pour hundreds of billions of dollars into UKraine so that the country can pursue an independent policy independent of the donors? - a coup that even the US/Nato supporting media wrote about?
A populace thats spends world record amounts of time on “social media” is guaranteed to be misinformed and unable to follow any consistent train of thought over time.
Furthermore every major European broadcaster, newspaper and media house is part of the coordinated narrative, spin and lies collaboration known as the Trusted News Initiative. They collude to bombard Europeans with lies and NATO propaganda.
Thanks for setting the record straight!
Glad you’re taking the time to return this misleading Zelenski discussion back to the truth.
Don’t see an EU State politic doing this to their detriment.
Neutrality of mind is so satisfying to read.
The article contains several points that could be considered manipulative or misleading due to selective framing, cherry-picking facts, and using emotionally loaded language to influence the reader. Below are some areas of concern:
1. Selective Presentation of Facts
Claim: "Ukraine did not have any nuclear weapons. The nuclear weapons in question were former Soviet nuclear weapons under the control of Moscow."
Manipulation: While technically true, this minimizes Ukraine's role in agreeing to transfer those weapons and ignores the strategic leverage Ukraine gave up by agreeing to denuclearize. This framing dismisses the significance of Ukraine's decision and the assurances it sought in return.
2. Cherry-Picking Commitments from the Budapest Memorandum
Claim: "NATO countries constantly ignore the first commitment but constantly refer to the second commitment."
Manipulation: The argument implies hypocrisy by NATO countries without considering the broader geopolitical context. It overlooks that NATO is not a signatory to the Budapest Memorandum and conflates its actions with those of the US and UK. This simplification ignores the complex interplay of international actors.
3. Emotional Framing
Claim: "The West interfered in the domestic affairs of Ukraine, imposed economic sanctions, and finally toppled the Ukrainian president to pull the country into NATO’s orbit."
Manipulation: This claim uses emotionally charged phrases like "toppled" and "pulled the country into NATO’s orbit" to suggest a deliberate and aggressive Western agenda. It downplays the internal dynamics of Ukraine, such as the widespread protests during the Euromaidan revolution, and overstates Western influence.
4. Questionable Legal Interpretations
Claim: "Under the principle of rebus sic stantibus, agreements should be upheld ‘provided things remain the same’ ... Russia was ‘entitled to ignore the earlier agreement.’"
Manipulation: The principle of rebus sic stantibus is being selectively applied here. While it allows for agreements to be reconsidered under radically changed circumstances, it is typically invoked in a legal framework, not unilaterally. This argument justifies Russia's actions without acknowledging international condemnation of the invasion.
5. False Equivalency
Claim: "The US freed itself from its commitments under the Budapest Memorandum ... Russia also abandoned it."
Manipulation: The article creates a false equivalency between Western actions (e.g., sanctions, promoting democracy) and Russia’s military invasion. While Western actions may be criticized, they do not equate to an outright violation of territorial sovereignty.
6. Misleading Dichotomy
Claim: "Either Ukraine will have nuclear weapons ... or Ukraine will be in NATO."
Manipulation: This oversimplifies Ukraine's security options, ignoring the potential for alternative agreements or frameworks. The framing creates a false sense of inevitability, pushing readers to accept only these two extreme outcomes.
7. Misrepresentation of Majority Opinion
Claim: "The West claimed to support a ‘democratic revolution,’ despite being an unconstitutional coup that did not even enjoy majority support."
Manipulation: This disregards evidence of substantial public support for Euromaidan protests and frames the event as purely a Western-driven coup, which oversimplifies the situation and ignores the agency of Ukrainian citizens.
8. Smearing Alternative Views
Claim: "Criticising the narrative of the Budapest Memorandum does not entail ‘legitimising’ Russia’s invasion."
Manipulation: While true on the surface, this statement preemptively dismisses criticism of the article's narrative by framing potential critics as unfairly accusing the author of justifying Russia's actions.
Dude, not you again with your ChatGPT. Please go practice your internship somewhere else 🤦🏼♀️😀
We could do with you at the end of every corporate "news" program - how come you're not in that role?
Volodymyr you are a piece of shit like all the f#cking ukronazis. Ukraine never existed, does not exist and will never exist. Retard 🤣
Bot alert....
When all trust, agreements and laws were violated in the past, on what grounds can there be a definite solution? MPO only a discontinuation of war can, the same goes for Israel and Palestine.