Huawei is in Trouble

Of course I'd quote RT. It's a much more objective and honest news outlet than any US or UK MSM. Also, by quoting RT I'm quoting Standard & Poor, Fitch investment firms. When you pretense to scoff at RT you're actually scoffing at S&P and Fitch, who are the sources for the information. What they say about their ratings encouraging investment into Russia isn't spin.

You talk about spin, but your comments are based on idea that came out of a sneering gossip resentful group, and aren't backed by facts. They're sentiment.

Oil is increasingly less dependent on oil year after year. Anyway, the price of oil hit its low in January 2016. Russia's foreign investment hit its low towards the end of 2014, after US sanctions. Since 2014, the long-term trend in foreign investment into Russia has been upwards. That's going to continue with ratings upgrades from S&P, Fitch, and Moody's, and will also increase as a result of Russia implementing its own international payments system to work outside of SWIFT. And if the EU goes ahead with its plan to create their own international payments system (which the US is pressuring them to not do), then unilateral US sanctions forced on other countries will basically be a thing of the past.

RT is the Kremlin's mouthpiece - the original fake news network. Honest and objective? Riiiiight.. You really think Russia is the tits? K, lol.
 
RT is the Kremlin's mouthpiece - the original fake news network

Saw them as a suggested video on YouTube for some reason. YT had to put the warning label on it though. They're (RT) completely full of shit.

Capture.JPG
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nunu
like this
There is everything fantastical about a claim that Russia invaded Crimea - because that literally didn't occur. Russia's had a large military presence in Crimea since the 1700s. Russia's troops didn't have to enter Crimea in 2014 because Russia's troops were already there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

So, there truly was no invasion. Additionally, Russia's presence in Crimea was wanted by the Crimean people and was protective of the region, and most of the Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea, who were Crimeans, transferred to the Russian military.

...

Oh, piss off. The Russian government was denying moving troops into there right up to the moment they annexed it. It was a blatant power move aimed at nato enchroachment into Russia's traditional sphere of influence, and if you believe otherwise I've got some real estate on the moon I'd like to sell you.
 
There is everything fantastical about a claim that Russia invaded Crimea - because that literally didn't occur. Russia's had a large military presence in Crimea since the 1700s. Russia's troops didn't have to enter Crimea in 2014 because Russia's troops were already there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

So, there truly was no invasion. Additionally, Russia's presence in Crimea was wanted by the Crimean people and was protective of the region, and most of the Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea, who were Crimeans, transferred to the Russian military.




According to?

https://www.rt.com/business/416954-russia-economy-foreign-investment/
https://www.rt.com/business/419692-fitch-russia-positive-outlook/
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/american-love-of-sanctions-won-t-stop-moody-s-upgrading-russia-1.1159451




That sounds to me like information from an insulated bubble.

Also, the EU is continuing to develop huge gas projects with Russia against the US' demands. Those projects aren't changing, they're a done deal, well into construction. The US doesn't care about those projects because of Russia, but because the US wants to force the EU to buy much more expensive US gas. It is all about money for the US.



HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH.... I hope you're a russian troll, because the only other option is much worse.....
 
Oh, piss off. The Russian government was denying moving troops into there right up to the moment they annexed it. It was a blatant power move aimed at nato enchroachment into Russia's traditional sphere of influence, and if you believe otherwise I've got some real estate on the moon I'd like to sell you.

So, you didn't read the post you responded to?

Of course Russian troops were in Crimea. They've been there all along, and many thousands of them were in Crimea at the time the US-sponsored coup in Kiev kicked off. Ukraine's constitution was nullified one month before Crimea held its referendum, and that left Crimea stateless - which is why Putin said that Russia isn't in Ukraine. He was correct. That's the Crimean view, too, as their government stated this as fact ahead of their referendum and as reasoning for their referendum. But Putin didn't deny having troops in Crimea, nor would it have made sense for him to.

Crimea wasn't annexed, though - it acceded to Russia following a lawful referendum. I guess you'd be surprised to know that the vast majority of the world doesn't support the NATO position that Crimea was annexed and is occupied.

https://www.rt.com/news/413727-un-resolution-crimea-rights-vote/


Saw them as a suggested video on YouTube for some reason. YT had to put the warning label on it though. They're (RT) completely full of shit.

View attachment 125968

Because there's a label that RT is funded by the Russian government? What's special about that? Most of the popular news out there is funded by states: BBC, CBC, Euro News, France 24, Deutsche Welle, CNN, Washington Post...


HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAAH.... I hope you're a russian troll, because the only other option is much worse.....

Everything I said is true. I guess you're just really conditioned with propaganda.
 
Last edited:
Well If RT news says Crimea wasn't annexed , it surely must be true! Honestly, I treated this as a somewhat serious topic, but it's clearly devolving into info wars. I hope you live in Russia though, because if you don't , then they have done an eerily masterful job of brainwashing abroad.
 
What does Chrimea and the Russian invasion have to do with Huawei?

Other than Nunu's very liberty-taking analogy of US allegedly teaching Russia a lesson for "invading" "Ukraine" to what the US allegedly can also to do China, not much at all. I don't think the alleged analogy works as an analogy, though, on the basis that its premises are not accurate.
 
This reflects extremely bad on America more then anything else. This is just seen as ruffian tactics for leverage on the trade front. The idea that Chinese people are not safe will mean that they just get diplomatic immunity next time they visit Canada and the point will be moot. Or did you think that large businesses from China do not need to get approval before they do trade with countries like Iran ....
I find it difficult to make sense of your post. You're the one making this about trade. AFAIK, this is about criminal behavior. Is it your position that if there were no trade issues between the US and China that possible criminal activity should be ignored? I'm truly baffled by your post.
I'd also imagine she is entirely safe at the moment and obtaining diplomatic status may not be as easy as you imagine.

I honestly feel dumber for having read your post. It does not matter how I interpret your post, it still makes no sense.

You sound like one of those "Orange Man Bad" drones who has no inkling of what they're talking about, yet feels the need to blather on.
 
Last edited:
China is a cancerous tumor which needs excising.
 
That's kind of their job man. Looking after the interests of their citizens. I bet you would want the same thing of whatever country you're from if you were held in say, Iran or some other place.
I certainly would not expect my gov't to demand proof of something before a trial.
If I ever did get arrested in China, I would not expect any help from my gov't.
 
It's still right of representatives to know what accusation caused arrest. Even non fabricated trials require preparation of defense. And violation of personal freedom do cause damage for some persons even permanent.

Well, this is reason why socialistic countries were not recommending to visit certain countries. And some people were forbidden to leave country, not because they would run away, but for theirs protection, an accusation is easy way how to damage a company/research.
 
i know this board has its supporters of mr "IT'S THE GLOBAL ECKANAMY", aka mitt romney, but where are the questions about his true involvement with huawei, especially in light of the failed 3com deal 10 years ago?

it seems it was mitt who wanted to indiscriminantly sell off america, and yet his rabid fan base post anti-chinese sentiment on this board when it was their hero who tabled this idea in the first place.

and you wonder why things were the way they were 200 years ago.
 
Huawei is in Trouble... and my 401K is in trouble because they are in trouble. :(
 
Very sad. My country with its nose up the ass of the US. Very sad, we need to toss the huge disappointment that is Trudeau.

We have an extradition treaty with the U.S. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

You may want to look up some facts next time before crying about Trudeau.
 
It's still right of representatives to know what accusation caused arrest. Even non fabricated trials require preparation of defense. And violation of personal freedom do cause damage for some persons even permanent.

Well, this is reason why socialistic countries were not recommending to visit certain countries. And some people were forbidden to leave country, not because they would run away, but for theirs protection, an accusation is easy way how to damage a company/research.
Are you under some impression that what you describe is happening in this case?
 
We have an extradition treaty with the U.S. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

You may want to look up some facts next time before crying about Trudeau.
You're correct that it has nothing to do with Trudeau. He is still a little girl who should have stuck to his career as a substitute drama teacher though.
 
We have an extradition treaty with the U.S. It has nothing to do with the Prime Minister.

You may want to look up some facts next time before crying about Trudeau.
Right? Like read a fucking book.

There’s plenty to rip on JT for that’s actually factually based.

I read this this morning and was really sueprised, and a bit proud, that we nutted up and did this.
 
I find it difficult to make sense of your post. You're the one making this about trade. AFAIK, this is about criminal behavior. Is it your position that if there were no trade issues between the US and China that possible criminal activity should be ignored? I'm truly baffled by your post.
I'd also imagine she is entirely safe at the moment and obtaining diplomatic status may not be as easy as you imagine.

I honestly feel dumber for having read your post. It does not matter how I interpret your post, it still makes no sense.

You sound like one of those "Orange Man Bad" drones who has no inkling of what they're talking about, yet feels the need to blather on.

I'm explaining it like it is. criminals are people that break laws this is not a law this is a one sided trade sanction only being enforced by America.
Russia Syria have been "criminals" as well ignoring this when everyone had sanctions on North Korea yet you don't hear anything about that do you?
 
I'm explaining it like it is. criminals are people that break laws this is not a law this is a one sided trade sanction only being enforced by America.
Russia Syria have been "criminals" as well ignoring this when everyone had sanctions on North Korea yet you don't hear anything about that do you?
No, you're telling it like you think it is.
This is what she's being charged with...
"charged with conspiracy to defraud multiple international institutions
Each charge carries up to 30 years in the slammer though the total number of counts have not been stated AFAIK. That sure sounds like criminal behavior to me.
Her bail hearing will continue on Monday. She's believed to have about 7 different passports and certainly has a massive fortune behind her so she's absolutely a flight-risk and I would not expect her to be released until she's given over to US custody. Provided the Canadians don't shit the bed...as I said earlier.

You can bring up Russia or Syria or anything else you like, but it's just empty noise. None of it is relevant to the issue(s) at hand. You can believe she's unsafe or that her and others will casually obtain diplomatic status to travel or that the world is flat. It does not matter.
 
Right? Like read a fucking book.

There’s plenty to rip on JT for that’s actually factually based.

I read this this morning and was really sueprised, and a bit proud, that we nutted up and did this.
Agree. It seems though there was little option, Canada is bound by their extradition treaty with the US. Nothing is set in stone at this point though. The US has to file specific paperwork (I don't know if that has been done or not yet) and the extradition has to be approved by Raybould.
 
No, you're telling it like you think it is.
This is what she's being charged with... Each charge carries up to 30 years in the slammer though the total number of counts have not been stated AFAIK. That sure sounds like criminal behavior to me.
Her bail hearing will continue on Monday. She's believed to have about 7 different passports and certainly has a massive fortune behind her so she's absolutely a flight-risk and I would not expect her to be released until she's given over to US custody. Provided the Canadians don't shit the bed...as I said earlier.

You can bring up Russia or Syria or anything else you like, but it's just empty noise. None of it is relevant to the issue(s) at hand. You can believe she's unsafe or that her and others will casually obtain diplomatic status to travel or that the world is flat. It does not matter.

If you think you can argue things upon you have extensive knowledge and claim everything else is irrelevant that is called straw man ....
 
Why would HSBC need to be deceived to deal with money going to or from Iran?? Didn't they have the huge huge fine of like two days profit for funneling and laundering Mexican drug cartel money for years to the tune of billions?

I think they already proved they'll do just about anything for money. It's probably HSBC they should be going after as well since this is the third or fourth major scandal in a decade of complicit illegal activity where they knew they were committing crimes. Except this time they were maybe in the dark. Wink wink wink wink.
 
If you think you can argue things upon you have extensive knowledge and claim everything else is irrelevant that is called straw man ....
I don't consider myself to have extensive knowledge on the subject but I am certainly capable of reading and I'm fairly adept at comprehending the written word.

You seem to have very deep misunderstandings so this will be my last post to you. You are welcome to have the last word, I don't care.
It's clear that you have no desire to discuss anything relevant to this topic. You want to talk about Russia and Syria and assorted unrelated issues. You also have no f'n clue what a strawman is as you've done nothing but set them up. Nothing in your posts refutes or argues anything I've actually said or anything relevant. I fully understand that you think what you posted was relevant but the reality is different. I'll repost my original comment you replied to then your replies.
I'm very interested in how this turns out.
Not much to say at this point as info is scarce as to the current proceedings but China's demand pissed me off.
Chinese Foreign ministry spokesman Geng Shuang said on Friday that neither Canada nor the United States had provided China any evidence that Meng had broken any law in those two countries, and reiterated Beijing’s demand that she be released.
Neither Canada nor the US has to prove a fucking thing to you, China. You don't get to see any evidence first. Evidence is for a trial. You can kindly go suck on a bag of dicks, one at a time, until the trial concludes. ...(assuming Canada does not shit the bed)
-------------------------------------------------------
This reflects extremely bad on America more then anything else. This is just seen as ruffian tactics for leverage on the trade front. The idea that Chinese people are not safe will mean that they just get diplomatic immunity next time they visit Canada and the point will be moot. Or did you think that large businesses from China do not need to get approval before they do trade with countries like Iran ....

I'm explaining it like it is. criminals are people that break laws this is not a law this is a one sided trade sanction only being enforced by America.
Russia Syria have been "criminals" as well ignoring this when everyone had sanctions on North Korea yet you don't hear anything about that do you?
Highlighted all the silly assertions and strawmen in bold type.

Have a nice day.

EDIT: On second thought, I am just going to ignore you so I no longer have to see your drivel. I've yet to see a post from you that's worth reading in this section and I continually disappoint myself by wasting time and effort by replying to people like you.
 
Last edited:
I'm explaining it like it is. criminals are people that break laws this is not a law this is a one sided trade sanction only being enforced by America.
Russia Syria have been "criminals" as well ignoring this when everyone had sanctions on North Korea yet you don't hear anything about that do you?

What are you on?

Huewie has allegedly violated international law, if you want those laws to have any teeth this is a good thing. You know we could just go back to using World Wars to hash out everything.
 
There is everything fantastical about a claim that Russia invaded Crimea - because that literally didn't occur. Russia's had a large military presence in Crimea since the 1700s. Russia's troops didn't have to enter Crimea in 2014 because Russia's troops were already there: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_Treaty_on_the_Status_and_Conditions_of_the_Black_Sea_Fleet

So, there truly was no invasion. Additionally, Russia's presence in Crimea was wanted by the Crimean people and was protective of the region, and most of the Ukrainian military personnel in Crimea, who were Crimeans, transferred to the Russian military.




According to?

https://www.rt.com/business/416954-russia-economy-foreign-investment/
https://www.rt.com/business/419692-fitch-russia-positive-outlook/
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/american-love-of-sanctions-won-t-stop-moody-s-upgrading-russia-1.1159451




That sounds to me like information from an insulated bubble.

Also, the EU is continuing to develop huge gas projects with Russia against the US' demands. Those projects aren't changing, they're a done deal, well into construction. The US doesn't care about those projects because of Russia, but because the US wants to force the EU to buy much more expensive US gas. It is all about money for the US.


Ummm, yea, no invasion. About that ..... I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday .....

I was at FOB Delta, (Al-Kut) in southern Iraq. The base was mostly non-US coalition troops, there were two Infantry outfits, Ukrainian, and El Salvadorian, and there was a Russian Helicopter unit proving all kinds of air support to the Infantry there. I was just visiting doing some local IT work for a US unit that was supporting some work on the border with Iran.

So I'm eating in the mess hall and it's a lively place ..... CNN is on all the TVs in the joint talking about the Russian troops that have crossed the border and the artillery shelling going on, while the Ukrainian Infantry are all sitting on one side of the place eye-balling the Russian Aviation guys and girls who all look like they would rather be somewhere else, while the El Salvadorian guys are stone faced, getting their meals, looking like they are secretly hoping that the other two will start some shit so they can just clean the place out and I think they could have done it. Those El Salvadorian looked fucking scary to me man.

So maybe you want to believe there was no invasion, but the Ukrainians left FOB Delta, recalled back home by their command. No blood-bath happened on the FOB, it quietened down, and the El Salvadorian Infantry had to settle for killing Iranian "volunteers" (who weren't really Revolutionary Guard).

Georgia, Ukraine, it's all Mother Russia to Putin.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/K...9aced5be45b6755f!8m2!3d32.5168459!4d45.846961
 
Ummm, yea, no invasion. About that ..... I'm going to need you to come in on Saturday .....

I was at FOB Delta, (Al-Kut) in southern Iraq. The base was mostly non-US coalition troops, there were two Infantry outfits, Ukrainian, and El Salvadorian, and there was a Russian Helicopter unit proving all kinds of air support to the Infantry there. I was just visiting doing some local IT work for a US unit that was supporting some work on the border with Iran.

So I'm eating in the mess hall and it's a lively place ..... CNN is on all the TVs in the joint talking about the Russian troops that have crossed the border and the artillery shelling going on, while the Ukrainian Infantry are all sitting on one side of the place eye-balling the Russian Aviation guys and girls who all look like they would rather be somewhere else, while the El Salvadorian guys are stone faced, getting their meals, looking like they are secretly hoping that the other two will start some shit so they can just clean the place out and I think they could have done it. Those El Salvadorian looked fucking scary to me man.

So maybe you want to believe there was no invasion, but the Ukrainians left FOB Delta, recalled back home by their command. No blood-bath happened on the FOB, it quietened down, and the El Salvadorian Infantry had to settle for killing Iranian "volunteers" (who weren't really Revolutionary Guard).

Georgia, Ukraine, it's all Mother Russia to Putin.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/K...9aced5be45b6755f!8m2!3d32.5168459!4d45.846961

All that amounts to is CNN, in typical fashion, reported false information and people in the room hearing it gave each other looks.

To invade means to enter into as a hostile force. Russia's troops didn't enter into Crimea - they were already there due to Russia's large Black Sea naval base on the peninsula that was there the entire time that Crimea was a part of Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia was lawfully allowed up to 25,000 troops on the Crimean peninsula at the time that things kicked off in Kiev. After Yanukovych was ousted and the Ukrainian constitution overruled and nullified, thereby disintegrating the statehood of Ukraine, Crimea was no longer a part of Ukraine as the state Ukraine no longer existed for Crimea to be a part of it. It is impossible for Russia to invade a non-existent state. The new state calling itself "Ukraine", no matter how much that state pretends otherwise, is not the same state as the one that had its constitution nullified in February of 2014, one month ahead of Crimea's referendum.

Though, even if Kiev had held legal authority over Crimea at the time of the 2014 Crimean referendum, Kiev would have been obligated to allow and facilitate Crimea's referendum as Ukraine was / is a signatory to the UN's International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which states the following:

PART I

Article 1

1. All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.

...

3. The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Governing and Trust Territories, shall promote the realization of the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.

PART II

Article 2

1. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to respect and to ensure to all individuals within its territory and subject to its jurisdiction the rights recognized in the present Covenant, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status.

2. Where not already provided for by existing legislative or other measures, each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes to take the necessary steps, in accordance with its constitutional processes and with the provisions of the present Covenant, to adopt such laws or other measures as may be necessary to give effect to the rights recognized in the present Covenant.

3. Each State Party to the present Covenant undertakes:

(a) To ensure that any person whose rights or freedoms as herein recognized are violated shall have an effective remedy, notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity;

(b) To ensure that any person claiming such a remedy shall have his right thereto determined by competent judicial, administrative or legislative authorities, or by any other competent authority provided for by the legal system of the State, and to develop the possibilities of judicial remedy;

(c) To ensure that the competent authorities shall enforce such remedies when granted.

Article 3

The States Parties to the present Covenant undertake to ensure the equal right of men and women to the enjoyment of all civil and political rights set forth in the present Covenant.


Also, Russia wasn't a hostile force in Crimea. There was no shelling or military fighting in Crimea - there has been shelling in Eastern Ukraine, though. There was something like 6 or 7 deaths related to Crimea's referendum and return to Russia, and the majority of those that were killed were pro-Russia protesters. The Ukrainian service personnel that were stationed in Crimea were also residents of Crimea, and so supported the referendum and return to Russia - as the Crimean populace had for the previous 2.5 decades. And numerous of the most respected Western pollsters have confirmed the results of the 2014 Crimean referendum to authentically represent the will of the Crimean people.

I've read that around 14,000 of the 20,000 Ukrainian military troops stations in Crimea went along with the referendum and joined Russia's forces - though, I haven't read confirmation of that.

CNN saying something doesn't make it true. CNN makes a business out of saying things that aren't true.


Regarding Georgia, it was Georgia that invaded South Ossetia, a region that had held two successful independence referendums and which had been de-facto independent since 1992, and started killing civilians and Russian peace-keeps in the middle of the night with missile salvos while using the Beijing Olympics as a distraction and a cover. Russia pushed Georgia out and bombed their military bases along the Georgian-South Ossetian border. Russia recognized South Ossetia's independence as a direct result to Georgia's invasion of the region.
 
Last edited:
All that amounts to is CNN, in typical fashion, reported false information and people in the room hearing it gave each other looks.

To invade means to enter into as a hostile force. Russia's troops didn't enter into Crimea - they were already there due to Russia's large Black Sea naval base on the peninsula that was there the entire time that Crimea was a part of Ukraine after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia was lawfully allowed up to 25,000 troops on the Crimean peninsula at the time that things kicked off in Kiev. After Yanukovych was ousted and the Ukrainian constitution overruled and nullified, thereby disintegrating the statehood of Ukraine, Crimea was no longer a part of Ukraine as the state Ukraine no longer existed for Crimea to be a part of it. It is impossible for Russia to invade a non-existent state. The new state calling itself "Ukraine", no matter how much that state pretends otherwise, is not the same state as the one that had its constitution nullified in February of 2014, one month ahead of Crimea's referendum.

Also, Russia wasn't a hostile force in Crimea. There was no shelling or military fighting in Crimea - there has been shelling in Eastern Ukraine, though. There was something like 6 or 7 deaths related to Crimea's referendum and return to Russia, and the majority of those that were killed were pro-Russia protesters. The Ukrainian service personnel that were stationed in Crimea were also residents of Crimea, and so supported the referendum and return to Russia - as the Crimean populace had for the previous 2.5 decades. And numerous of the most respected Western Pollsters have confirmed the results of the 2014 Crimean referendum to authentically represent the will of the Crimean people.

I've read that around 14,000 of the 20,000 Ukrainian military troops stations in Crimea went along with the referendum and joined Russia's forces - though, I haven't read confirmation of that.

CNN saying something doesn't make it true. CNN makes a business out of saying things that aren't true.


Regarding Georgia, it was Georgia that invaded South Ossetia, a region that had been de-facto independent since 1992, and started killing civilians and Russian peace-keeps in the middle of the night with missile salvos while using the Beijing Olympics as a distraction and a cover. Russia pushed Georgia out and bombed their military bases along the Georgian-South Ossetian border. Russia recognized South Ossetia's independence as a direct result to Georgia's invasion of the region.



Are you dense? I was Military Intelligence in a war zone .......... think about it :confused:
 
Are you dense? I was Military Intelligence in a war zone .......... think about it :confused:

Your post contained no information relevant to substantiating a claim that Russia invaded Crimea. You're trying to intimidate by making an appeal to an appearance of authority, which is known as a logical fallacy.


The people on this flight would beg to differ, if they could...

That didn't occur in Crimea. And the most recent statement on the matter of who's responsible for downing MH-17 from a JIT investigation member is this one:

No conclusive evidence Russia behind MH17 downing: Malaysia transport minister

"There is no conclusive evidence to point at Russia under the JIT evidence. But who's responsible - you can't just pinpoint at Russia" - core JIT member Malaysia (you know, whose plane was downed), May 2018


Russia's government also recently gave a report on the JIT evidence, purporting to show that the missile that downed MH-17 belonged to Ukraine:

Serial numbers of missile that downed MH17 show it was produced in 1986, owned by Ukraine - Russia
 
Last edited:
Your post contained no information relevant to substantiating a claim that Russia invaded Crimea or Ukraine. You're trying to intimidate by an appeal to an appearance of authority, which is known as a logical fallacy.




That didn't occur in Crimea. And the most recent statement on the matter of who's responsible for downing MH-17 from a JIT investigation member is this one:

No conclusive evidence Russia behind MH17 downing: Malaysia transport minister

"There is no conclusive evidence to point at Russia under the JIT (Joint Investigative Team) evidence. But who's responsible - you can't just pinpoint at Russia" - core JIT member Malaysia (you know, whose plane was downed), May 2018

Well, I could tell you more ..... but then I'd have to shoot you :ROFLMAO:

Yes, all the video we watched of tanks and troops traveling through the countryside was fake news. Russian "separatists" as it were, with tanks and self propelled artillery. Do you have any idea of how much logistical support is required to keep mechanized forces active in an operational environment? Not too much if it's just a few, but when it's in battalion strength and better, that becomes an entirely different matter.

Those "separatists" weren't taking an evening drive around the base, they were advancing from the Russian border toward key logistics facilities inside Georgia. A Naval facility in Crimea isn't the countryside of the peninsula nor is it any other controlling part of the interior.

This is a strange report, I found. Sounds like an invasion, looks like an invasion, smells like an invasion, justified or not, for some reason, the EU doesn't call it an invasion and says Georgia brought it on themselves by attacking "break-away" separatists in Ossetia. September 30, 2009
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...russia-eu-backed-report-idUSTRE58T4MO20090930

Still, I wouldn't confuse the Russian-Georgian War of 2009 with what was going on while I was in Iraq over a year earlier.
 
Last edited:
Blah, blah, blah....

I am curious. What does it pay to be a Russian Misinformation Specialist pay? Or, is it considered more of a service to the Motherland? In exchange, they don't send you and/or your family to Siberia...
 
I am curious. What does it pay to be a Russian Misinformation Specialist pay? Or, is it considered more of a service to the Motherland? In exchange, they don't send you and/or your family to Siberia...

Please don't waste my time while simultaneously flaunting your ignorance and brain-washedness. You'll be doing both of us a favour.


Well, I could tell you more ..... but then I'd have to shoot you :ROFLMAO:

Yes, all the video we watched of tanks and troops traveling through the countryside was fake news.

There were no videos of tanks crossing the Crimean borders. There have been videos of tanks traversing in areas of Russia along the East Ukrainian border, and of military vehicles being transported within Eastern Ukraine (though no proof of any Russian vehicles being transported in Eastern Ukraine), but there is no footage of Russian tanks crossing the Crimean border. I think there was some hype stories about it when everything was starting - but those claims turned out to be baseless.

Here's one of the fake Russian tanks stories:

Edit: It's not a fake Russian tank story, just a Kiev-tanks-violating-agreements story:

https://www.rt.com/news/376073-avdeevka-kiev-tanks-ukraine/

There was another some months ago, claiming that Russia tanks were travelling through the Ukrainian countryside - but it turned out that the footage was taken on Russia's side of the East Ukrainian / Russian border. I'm not immediately finding that story right now.

The tactic of the news media is to inundate people's senses with associations between targeted parties and actions, so that people come to believe and assume that the targeted parties are for a fact known to be doing those things.
 
Last edited:
I am curious. What does it pay to be a Russian Misinformation Specialist pay? Or, is it considered more of a service to the Motherland? In exchange, they don't send you and/or your family to Siberia...

He gets a higher social score. Provides better discounts at the grocery store.
 
Back
Top