Post - Armatus

Stolensoul 1 year ago

The only international journalists who confirm those things, are journalists who have taken part in russian propaganda for years.

And once again, don't get me wrong: I don't *trust* Ukraine to be honest either. The difference is that Russia is visibly, actively hiding the truth under heavy propaganda. Ukraine might not be 100% honest (just like most governments), and I am wary of their "war of communication" because their president is really good at taking advantage of the situation,

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

The thing is that Russia denying everything and saying that everything is the responsibility of Ukraine just proves that they are being dishonest and actively trying to hide reality.
It's not hard to pay someone to say that they are doing this or that, and the fact that those interviews only exist in russian tends to prove that it's just "russian reality" and not actual reality. Why are all the independant journalists in the world unable to find such people?

-1

Stolensoul 1 year ago

If someone tells me that the ukrainian army didn't commit any, I'll also tell them that it's irrational. During wars, war crimes are committed because soldiers are not all kind and gentle people. And I do consider that Ukraine has a responsibility in some things happening (like the fact that they use civillian places to store weaponry and such). This is how wars go.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

I can't blame you for the video thing, now that I look at it again the translation is REALLY approximative. The other guy says "which doesn't mean that russian soldiers didn't commit any too" to which the journalist replies that "but it means there are ukrainian war crimes too", basically. Guess the guy who made the translation wasn't being really honest.

The problem is that if you trust the Russian narrative, absolutely no war crimes were committed by the russian army. This is irrational.

0

Armatus 1 year ago

...not commited by Russians but Ukrainian servicemen.

1:45 timing on video.
Also i have more russian speaking sources.
There are evidences of ukrainian crimes (by civilians in Mariupol for example), but not a single one of solid evidence of russian army "crimes".

Most known fakes like bucha and maternity hospital have a ukrainian background.
(i can prove it, there are plenty of material in russian, including interview of actors with open faces that takе part in ukrainian's fake plays)

0

Armatus 1 year ago

> said that Russia commited war crimes
french journalist says:
i can tell you that i saw evidence of numerous war crimes there.
And the only war crimes i saw were not commited Russians but Ukrainian servicemen.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

When a country invades another with soldiers and tanks, you can either call it war, or large-scale terrorism. Saying it's not a war is utterly naive. "War: Organized, large-scale, armed conflict between countries" - Wiktionary. This, is a war, even without formal declaration.

And it's funny because the French, pro-russia journalist you trusted, himself said that Russia commited war crimes. But if you want there is a big wikipedia page about those, with sources if you want to check them too.

1

Armatus 1 year ago

what war? Russia not declared war, Ukraine not declared war either.
You can call it conflict if you want, but be accurate with definitions.

EU media blindly copy the ukrainian narratives. What war crimes exactly you talking about?

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

No offense, but I don't consider you to be a "serious" source. If it's so obvious, it should be easy to find such videos everywhere, including filmed by professional journalists (not including the ones spreading propaganda for years).

Also, I'd like to point out that nazis or not, I don't see how that would justify starting a war and committing war crimes from Russia. They used it as an excuse, but it's a pathetic one.

1

Armatus 1 year ago

if you have teleglam i can share video of captured azov troops - around half of them have same nazi shit all over their bodies.

will it be solid enough for you?

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

So you have unsourced news about Russia saying that they were right all along, which is worthless, and a picture of a random nazi from reddit. Please tell me that you are actually seeing that none of these are solid, they are not even proofs.

0

Armatus 1 year ago

Now, we must all fear evil men. But there is another kind of evil which we must fear most, and that is the indifference of good men.

0

Armatus 1 year ago

21.05.2022 neo-nazi from azov unconditionaly surrender to russian army in Mariupol.
Russians collected evidence of their crimes on Donbass region for 8 years (azov kills civilians, russian-speakers, ukrainians who doesn't support nazi).

hope that all nazi see the court.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

The example you gave is from a pro-russia anti-ukraine journalist who worked for russian channels, and managed to get banned from Ukraine in 2014 for "supporting terrorism" and propagating russian propaganda. Not exactly an unbiased source.
And I'm not using sources from only one side, I just didn't see yet a serious source supporting Russia, those who do are highly dubious or biased, which is worrying.

And I don't see the point of citing unrelated past events.

0

Armatus 1 year ago

@Stolensoul
There are several other non-russian sources (if you look previous video till the end, not only from this channel)

for example:

https://www.youtube.com/c/GrahamPhillipsUK/videos

It is bad to use sources only from one side of conflict. Many russians, include me, search and compare information from both sides. (about Bucha, sinking our ship, how treated the captives... etc)

one historical fact:
in 1944 (before liberation) England and US also says that Auschwitz is RED propaganda.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

Well it's funny because I'm French. The background you see behind the "journalist" shows that it's from "Sud Radio". Which happens to be a radio channel that has specialized during the past few years in propagating conspiracy theories and far right propaganda. No real journalist would accept going there.
That's the problem with this "nazi theory", the lack of solid evidence. While on the other side, russian propaganda isn't new. So until I see new, solid information, I'll stick to that.

0

Armatus 1 year ago

@Stolensoul ,
I do not try to convince you, but i was in Donetzk, talking to people, who was shelled by ukrainian army 8 years.
if you CAN'T trust russians about nature of azov and many others military groups of ukraine, maybe you trust you own journalists? Who already visiting Kiev?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKSbn6FNyQ4

-1

Stolensoul 1 year ago

Now if suddenly they start killing gay people under the justification that they're supposedly "sub-humans", then of course I'd accept calling them nazis, but that's a behaviour that has been seen more often around Russia than Ukraine, as far as I know.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

[...] to Ukraine could end up in their hands. Which, again, is not really a problem as long as the group has no obvious neo-nazi behaviour nowadays.

Don't get me wrong, for me the idea that far-right groups are armed is nothing I'm happy about; but if you look at facts, Azov is just part of the "police force" of Ukraine and is no more nazi than your usual far-right supporter.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

From what I see, the group was first "militarily active" in February 2014, because they were upset that the ukrainian military was basically not up to the task. Then they got their "official" position as a militia in april, which matches what you said. And I agree that this official position should not have been given back then.

Holding a NATO weapon doesn't imply support from NATO. Moreover, the group is now part of the National Guard of Ukraine, which means that any weapons given [...]

0

Armatus 1 year ago

@Stolensoul it's armed after a coup in 2014, not after Crimea referendum. (East parts of Ukraine does not agree with changing government by mobs)

USA supports azov, even if it's doesn't say so. Look at anti-tank weapon in the azov member nand - it's NATO weapon. (video filmed by azov in Mariupol)

Also we have capture some of british mercenary, fighting with azov (Also with NATO weapons)

-1

Stolensoul 1 year ago

Right after 2014, which is after Russia invaded Crimea, exactly.

According to wikipedia "in early 2022, the US continued to officially ban arms support to Azov" specifically because of the worries surrounding the neo-nazi roots of the group (which is understandable).

And you propagated the idea that Ukraine protects/encourages nazis, which is propaganda coming exclusively from Russia, so yes, your message was about Russia, like it or not.

1

Armatus 1 year ago

small correction here: "got armed and officialized" right after 2014, not after russian hostility. These groups not long ago claimed as neo-nazis by most countries (USA, JAPAN, ENG). Right now they got nato weapons directly from EU and USA.

I really like that mind-twist about russia (both the picture and my initial message don't say anything about Russia at all)

-1

Stolensoul 1 year ago

While I find it worrying that a single politician in Ukraine had enough power to give weapons to neo-nazis (in 2014), trying to use events from almost a decade ago to justify war and war crimes is not only ridiculous, but also pathetic. I don't even get how such inept and easily-debunked propaganda managed to find its way into naive brains.

0

Stolensoul 1 year ago

What's funny is that the *formerly* neo-nazi group thar used this symbol (and probably is shown on the picture) got armed and officialized due to the russian hostilities. Turns out that when lacking military power against attacks, despair pushes to unlikely allies.
So Russia caused the rise of neo-nazi groups in Ukraine, and are now using it as an excuse, even though the dubious behaviours of that group have apparently stopped years ago.

0

Replies