Occam’s razor doesn’t mean “the view that contradicts my prejudices the least”. What you consider more or less likely has jack shit to do with it, learn what terms mean.

All sources have a built in bias jfc. If you think you’ve seen an unbiased source that just means you’re not self aware enough to recognize that it’s just your bias

They’re quoting people who were at the negotiations and when Johnson vetoed the deal, evidence doesn’t become more true or less true because it’s posted by a billionaire’s paper.

But if you like, you can pretend NBC quoted an anonymous source who said it. Or just look for Arakhamia+“do not sign anything with them” and do your own cross referencing instead of sealioning.

So, just NBC news doing the usual and boosting baseless claims like it did about Hamas and beheaded babies? Do y’all even read the shit you post or do you just skim for a headline that matches what you want to say?

The report cites no evidence and only points to “anonymous sources” (how surprising). NBC also doesn’t cite any evidence and points to other articles posted by themselves, one of which says are in the process of collecting the evidence but:

Experts worry that investigations could be less efficient and that some evidence could be mishandled or not make its way to investigative teams with the International Criminal Court and the Prosecutor General’s Office in Ukraine

Really convenient. Excellent standards of proof as always. No wonder the ICJ has denounced the lawfare of Ukraine.

The Court has held that certain materials, such as press articles and extracts from publications, are regarded ‘not as evidence capable of proving facts.’

Indeed.

The axe forgets but the tree remembers

If Dems didn’t think it was debt then maybe they should have sent weapons gifts instead of weapons loans.

Gringos might fall for the good cop bad cop shit but the rest of the world has a working memory longer than last month and we know that Dems build the bulldozer and wail when Republicans wreck shit with it.

Funny way of going about it, given that they’ve offered terns of peace every few months and negotiated a ceasefire that the US and its vassal the UK vetoed (hmmm 🤔) a few months in.

Quote:

When we returned from Istanbul, [then-British Prime Minister] Boris Johnson came to Kiev and said: ‘Do not sign anything with them at all; just go to war,’” Arakhamia said.

Rather than report [the real demands] to the public, however, the media in Europe and the U.S. focused on sensational statements that were not actually part of those negotiations.

Oh no, whatever will all the rest of us do without chronic reposters who are allergic to reading articles?

Least melodramatic .world user

Again you’re twisting yourself up in a knot to try to fit reality into the neat little prejudice you decided is correct. If it turns out to be wrong, rather than change your view, you try another prejudice to see if that one fits.

You know very well I need a source that contains any evidence to the claims that Russians are systematically raping children. But it’s easier for libs to fight windmills than it is to walk back jingoist stances they readily swallowed without any evidence and repeat as fact.

Us in the global south know that white westerners like to paint their opponents as monstrous animals at the slightest provocation to justify their genocidal drives. So either prove your accusations or shut the fuck up.

This image is almost 3 years old already lmao.

If any libs want to learn how tankies see the future you might want to read about the past for once. Pop history doesn’t count.

America spent fuck all on Ukraine in the entire history of its independence up until Euromaidan

Oh fr? Let’s ask as-US-backed-as-US-backed-gets Kyiv Independent then: https://kyivindependent.com/how-us-foreign-aid-transformed-ukraine-through-the-years/

With the signing of a bilateral agreement between Ukraine and USAID in 1992, the agency started working alongside the Ukrainian government to build a competitive market economy, implement crucial social reforms […] In over 30 years of working in Ukraine, USAID has played a key role in transforming numerous sectors […] Dmytro Boyarchuk, the executive director of the Centre for Social and Economic Research (CASE Ukraine), said that Ukraine would not have been able to implement vital reforms without the support of international donors like USAID.

Obfuscate it as much as you want, pro-western Ukrainians themselves are telling everyone how maintaining a pro-western system depends on US funds.

The US didn’t need to do a damn thing

Nice deflection but the fact is that it did, often and extensively. If the US didn’t need to spend that money, then you shouldn’t worry, pretty soon they might not be. Let’s see how friendly that world is to the US and their chickenshit vassals in the UK et al, I yearn to see it. Most of all I yearn that y’all see it.

deleted by creator

It actually started on February 2014 and then abruptly stopped around May for 8 years

Or:

"We have found the evidence to be nonexistent, the case to be exaggerated, the timing and backers to be suspect

But US media needs a soundbite so here’s a short dismissal and a long condemnation"

And the report provides… zero evidence. How come there’s plenty of evidence for Ukraine’s crimes (always discredited as Russia propaganda) but Ukraine can just say shit and it’s up to everyone else to prove they’re lying?

It’s one of many examples of US funding, many of which I’ve already cited in this very thread which you refuse to acknowledge (even to refute) unless you can find a fucking Phoenix Wright gotcha lmao.

It doesn’t matter a single fucking bit why they would die without US funding, what matters is that they would, and thus they’re entirely at the behest of their benefactors. It’s also awfully convenient that you choose 2014 as a cutoff point for US involvement in Ukraine but you fail by that metric also. Regardless, Ukraine is thoroughly a puppet state of the US and its many crimes in the Donbas region are not a matter of debate. The ICJ has by and large rejected the atrocity propaganda lawfare of Ukraine and NATO and the probe has found evidence of genocidal intent in Donbas.

You handwaved it away and deflected back to your State department bullet points and atrocity propaganda.

Fact: there was a US financed coup.

Fact: states have a right to secede under Ukrainian law by referendum, and they exercised that right when their sovereignty was violated

Fact: sovereign nations have a right to request aid from their allies. Donetsk and Lugansk exercised that right when Ukrainian Nazis refused to abide by the many ceasefires Russia helped to negotiate.

American spending on Ukraine in 2013

Good thing we’re talking about the money it spent on the coup and the aftermath, then.

So the fact that America funded through USAID 9 out of every 10 media outlets means they didn’t spend “anything” in Ukraine because… It spends way more fucking money than that everywhere else too?

Also, implying the US only spends the money in a country via direct government cash injection lmao. Most of the money the US spends is channelled through NGOs for propaganda and covert action. Why the fuck would they ever just give money away to a government before it’s thoroughly vassalized. What’s more: there’s ample evidence that US and UK propaganda specialists were employed by Subversive elements within Ukraine as well as extensive funding of NGOs and collaboration with psyop specialists.

In future resumes, they cited the Ukraine coup as well as the selling of the civil war as a “war against russian separatists” as an example of a successful psychological operation.