Russian Invasion of Ukraine[In Progress]

[suchmoon]

This is a pretty silly argument, to the point of absurdity. Is the concept of media bias really totally alien to you? Do you honestly categorize media sources between totally credible and totally non-credible? If so please share with us which media sources you consider totally credible? (something telling me that you won't and just trolling as usual) Otherwise either state your counterarguments by citing some sources, or stop these silly attempts at derailing the conversation.

Where did I say that I categorize media as "totally credible" etc? Rhetorical question of course, because I didn't, you're just making this up as you always do.

Media can be biased. You are cherrypicking. Incredibly difficult concept to grasp but give it a shot: more than one of those statements can be true.

[1714764238]

1714764238

[1714764238]

1714764238

[LTU_btc]

It seems that Ukraine has downed an IL-22 and a A-50 EWC. These are seriously high value targets in the range of hundreds of millions. Ruzzia has only 30 of these.

Something out there is hunting Ruzzian planes and it seems to be hungry.

There were only 8 A-50 planes in service, but it doesn't means that all these planes is ready to fly. And loss of such plane isn't just about money, it would take years to build such plane from scratch and I'm not sure that current Russia is capable to do it.
Il-22 worked as command post, they managed to land it. But when you see how much damage from shrapnel it good, I doubt it's possible to repair it:
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1746872033185563018
Some Russian channels raised version of friendly fire, but I doubt about it. These planes almost from start of invasion were flying same route daily in Azov see triangle between Crimea, Berdyansk and Rostov, it's difficult to believe in such version. Now is question what Ukraine used to reach it, after all, distance to Berdyansk from front line is quite significant.

[paxmao]

It seems that Ukraine has downed an IL-22 and a A-50 EWC. These are seriously high value targets in the range of hundreds of millions. Ruzzia has only 30 of these.

Something out there is hunting Ruzzian planes and it seems to be hungry.

There were only 8 A-50 planes in service, but it doesn't means that all these planes is ready to fly. And loss of such plane isn't just about money, it would take years to build such plane from scratch and I'm not sure that current Russia is capable to do it.
Il-22 worked as command post, they managed to land it. But when you see how much damage from shrapnel it good, I doubt it's possible to repair it:
https://twitter.com/RALee85/status/1746872033185563018
Some Russian channels raised version of friendly fire, but I doubt about it. These planes almost from start of invasion were flying same route daily in Azov see triangle between Crimea, Berdyansk and Rostov, it's difficult to believe in such version. Now is question what Ukraine used to reach it, after all, distance to Berdyansk from front line is quite significant.

Hi, sorry yes it it is 12 IL from some sources IL is above 300M to make new, and the A-50 are effectively super-limited. It is not the first time that they are able to hit Berdyansk, but airborne targets in flight it relatively new.

Zelensky is speaking of a "weapon supplied by allies" that has helped on this task. I wonder what systems are there capable of the task other than the patriot. The PAC-2 has 160 km of range. A meteor shot from an F-16 has 200 KM, but there are no planes able to use it yet in Ukraine... in theory.

[DaRude]

This is a pretty silly argument, to the point of absurdity. Is the concept of media bias really totally alien to you? Do you honestly categorize media sources between totally credible and totally non-credible? If so please share with us which media sources you consider totally credible? (something telling me that you won't and just trolling as usual) Otherwise either state your counterarguments by citing some sources, or stop these silly attempts at derailing the conversation.

Where did I say that I categorize media as "totally credible" etc? Rhetorical question of course, because I didn't, you're just making this up as you always do.

Media can be biased. You are cherrypicking. Incredibly difficult concept to grasp but give it a shot: more than one of those statements can be true.

You're just all kinds of confused here aren't you? Isn't bias pretty much the opposite of credibility? If you you know that Fox news is biased towards Trump so you adjust for their bias when reading their coverage that's cherry picking to you?

[paxmao]

This is a pretty silly argument, to the point of absurdity. Is the concept of media bias really totally alien to you? Do you honestly categorize media sources between totally credible and totally non-credible? If so please share with us which media sources you consider totally credible? (something telling me that you won't and just trolling as usual) Otherwise either state your counterarguments by citing some sources, or stop these silly attempts at derailing the conversation.

Where did I say that I categorize media as "totally credible" etc? Rhetorical question of course, because I didn't, you're just making this up as you always do.

Media can be biased. You are cherrypicking. Incredibly difficult concept to grasp but give it a shot: more than one of those statements can be true.

You're just all kinds of confused here aren't you? Isn't bias pretty much the opposite of credibility? If you you know that Fox news is biased towards Trump so you adjust for their bias when reading their coverage that's cherry picking to you?

That's the silliest thing I have heard from you... probably. No, you do not "correct for bias", you look at the facts - if there are any in the whole article, check these facts across sources and form YOUR own opinion about what it means. It will not work 100% of times and it will not ever work perfectly because you are rarely close enough to the original source but it is better than "correcting for bias" where you do not know how much of a bias they have introduced.

Seems to me you are confusing opinion and facts e.g. Ruzzia lost the equivalent to an AWACS yesterday and it costs 300 million. That seems to be a confirmed fact from a variety of sources. Anything not confirmed is an opinion: it being an "accident" a shot by Ruzzia's own airdefence, a shot by a Patriot or a crash or due to lack of maintenance.

Or something closer to your posting history: The Nordstream was blown up, fact. It was Ruzzia, US, a humpback whale, two Polish guys.... speculative, opinion.

[DaRude]

This is a pretty silly argument, to the point of absurdity. Is the concept of media bias really totally alien to you? Do you honestly categorize media sources between totally credible and totally non-credible? If so please share with us which media sources you consider totally credible? (something telling me that you won't and just trolling as usual) Otherwise either state your counterarguments by citing some sources, or stop these silly attempts at derailing the conversation.

Where did I say that I categorize media as "totally credible" etc? Rhetorical question of course, because I didn't, you're just making this up as you always do.

Media can be biased. You are cherrypicking. Incredibly difficult concept to grasp but give it a shot: more than one of those statements can be true.

You're just all kinds of confused here aren't you? Isn't bias pretty much the opposite of credibility? If you you know that Fox news is biased towards Trump so you adjust for their bias when reading their coverage that's cherry picking to you?

That's the silliest thing I have heard from you... probably. No, you do not "correct for bias", you look at the facts - if there are any in the whole article, check these facts across sources and form YOUR own opinion about what it means. It will not work 100% of times and it will not ever work perfectly because you are rarely close enough to the original source but it is better than "correcting for bias" where you do not know how much of a bias they have introduced.

Seems to me you are confusing opinion and facts e.g. Ruzzia lost the equivalent to an AWACS yesterday and it costs 300 million. That seems to be a confirmed fact from a variety of sources. Anything not confirmed is an opinion: it being an "accident" a shot by Ruzzia's own airdefence, a shot by a Patriot or a crash or due to lack of maintenance.

Or something closer to your posting history: The Nordstream was blown up, fact. It was Ruzzia, US, a humpback whale, two Polish guys.... speculative, opinion.

And that's exactly how manipulation happens. I wish your concept of facts would be as straight forward as you put it out to be, better yet lets have the "bad" guy where all black and the "good" guy wear all white so everyone would know who's bad and who's good.
For example if we take your claim of Russia loosing their AWACS worth $300 mil as a fact, is it good or bad? On the surface in the vacuum of other details the impulse is to think that it's great news for Ukraine, but is it really? Do we know all of the facts about this situation, could you think of any other facts, conveniently not covered, which would possibly change your perception of the situation? Now i'm not a military expert but here are some minimal facts from top of my head that i could possibly effect the perception of the situation:
-how many missiles were in that valley to take it down? Each patriot costs $1MM-$4MM?
-according to Ukraine on the last RU attack only 8 missiles were destroyed and 20 "missed" their target out of the 40. By their own admission that means that 12 Russian missiles/drones hit their target in a day. What did they hit, how much was that damage? Could UA's low intercept ratio (70%) be because anti-air was pulled from defending infrastructure to hunt for Russian AWACS?
-how many attempts did it take to finally bring 1 AWACS down? War has been going on for almost two years now, how long have Ukraine been hunting for that AWACS? If such anti-air missile volleys have been going every week and it took hundreds of valleys during the war for one missile to finally hit the mark, doubt many would be excited about this
-Ukraine got 1 AWACS out of 8? in two years of war, and at the top of their anti-air defense supplies. So at this rate it would take another 14years of the same supply of anti-air defense systems to get the other 7? That is if Russia doesn't adjust their tactics?
-if Russia had 8 of these AWACSs how long does it take to build one? How many have RU built since the beginning of the war?
etc etc etc but all of these facts would be inconvenient for propaganda so why would  media cover that, when their roll is to drum up moral/support for their respective side? By leaving out some facts you're not technically lying, but can easily manipulate, and make people draw erroneous conclusions. a.k.a stop asking questions and clap with everybody else! Once again why i try not to discuss the daily events at the front and concentrate on the macro picture.

As far as Nordstream can you give us an example which "facts" could convince you that Ukraine was involved, or by definition there just couldn't be any? Is it all or nothing, black or white or there's a scale for evidence like "highly likely"? And do you believe you're objectively looking at this? Is the burden of proof to convince you that Russia blew up their own pipeline would be the same as to convince you that Ukraine blew up pipeline carrying Russian gas?

[suchmoon]

You're just all kinds of confused here aren't you? Isn't bias pretty much the opposite of credibility? If you you know that Fox news is biased towards Trump so you adjust for their bias when reading their coverage that's cherry picking to you?

This makes no sense. Can tell by the percentage of loaded and otherwise idiotic questions with relation to the total content of your post, in this case 100%.

You can stop pretending, I doubt anyone here believes that you just found the article browsing Guardian's website and thought "hm, this sounds credible". You lifted this from whatever sewage you lift all your Kremlin talking points and thought that those western idiots in this thread would surely believe anything coming from their western media because obviously all western media works the same and does only what Biden tells it to do.

Hate to disappoint you, but this is so ludicrous outside of Putinstan that you're really wasting your time trying this cherry-picking shit over and over again. Just post links to Medvedev's drunk telegram posts and we'll at least know that you're being honest.

[DaRude]

You're just all kinds of confused here aren't you? Isn't bias pretty much the opposite of credibility? If you you know that Fox news is biased towards Trump so you adjust for their bias when reading their coverage that's cherry picking to you?

This makes no sense. Can tell by the percentage of loaded and otherwise idiotic questions with relation to the total content of your post, in this case 100%.

You can stop pretending, I doubt anyone here believes that you just found the article browsing Guardian's website and thought "hm, this sounds credible". You lifted this from whatever sewage you lift all your Kremlin talking points and thought that those western idiots in this thread would surely believe anything coming from their western media because obviously all western media works the same and does only what Biden tells it to do.

Hate to disappoint you, but this is so ludicrous outside of Putinstan that you're really wasting your time trying this cherry-picking shit over and over again. Just post links to Medvedev's drunk telegram posts and we'll at least know that you're being honest.

Actually i just browse news aggregator sites like news.google.com for keyword "Ukraine" and filter for last day to stay updated on the topic. But keep thinking that i'm an agent of Kremlin. It's interesting to watch your reaction when i point to western media pivoting, which is typically a precursor to political pivot.

Circling back to Nord Stream missed this one from few days back

Nord Stream Probe Hampered by Resistance From Poland

BERLIN—Polish officials have resisted cooperating with an international probe into the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural-gas pipelines and failed to disclose potentially crucial evidence, according to European investigators working on the case.
Those Polish officials have been slow to provide information and withheld key evidence about the alleged saboteurs’ movements on Polish soil, investigators said. They are now hoping the new government in Warsaw, which took office in December, will help shed light on the attack.

European investigators have long believed the attack was launched from Ukraine via Poland. But they say Warsaw’s failure to fully cooperate has made it hard to establish whether the attack happened with or without the former Polish government’s knowledge, according to senior officials.

Some senior European officials say they are considering approaching the office of Donald Tusk, Poland’s new prime minister, for help in investigating the biggest act of sabotage on the European continent since World War II.
...
The Nord Stream pipelines, connecting Russia to Germany underneath the Baltic Sea, were blown up in September 2022. This added pressure on Germany and others to make themselves independent from Russian fuel supplies.

Investigators haven’t offered evidence linking the Polish government to the explosions and say that even if some Polish officials were involved, it could have been without the knowledge of the political leadership. Yet they say efforts by Polish officials to hinder their investigation have made them increasingly suspicious of Warsaw’s role and motives.
...
Most Western security officials believe that a Ukrainian crew, operating with or without sanction from Kyiv, was behind the sabotage. Ukraine has denied any involvement.
...
An investigation by Germany, Denmark and Sweden has so far found that the pipeline was blown up by a crew of six, including deep-sea divers, traveling on a leisure yacht called Andromeda. On its voyage, Andromeda stopped in all three countries, as well as Poland, according to investigators. The boat, leased in Germany via a Polish company, contained traces of octagon, the same explosive that was found at the underwater blast sites, they said.
After mining parts of the pipelines, the crew docked in Poland’s Baltic port of Kołobrzeg, where they spent a full day, according to investigators who tracked the boat by analyzing its navigation system data, the crew’s mobile-phone communications, satellite imagery and witnesses’ accounts.

A port official suspicious about the five men and one woman, all of whom spoke a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, alerted police. On Sept. 19, Poland’s border guard checked the identification of the crew, who produced European Union passports and were allowed to continue their trip, sailing back up north, where they laid the rest of the mines, investigators say.

Polish authorities didn’t share this information with European investigators until March 2023—and they only did so after being contacted by their German counterparts. Berlin was tipped off in January about the yacht’s stay in Poland by the Dutch military intelligence service, whose information came from someone in Ukraine.

A number of Polish agencies declined to share with European investigators footage of the suspects taken by CCTV cameras while the yacht was moored there, those investigators said. The investigators have established that the boat and its crew were exposed to security cameras throughout their stay in the port.
...
In one instance, Polish prosecutors told their European counterparts that no explosives were found on the Andromeda, although no forensic investigation had taken place. Yet the Polish internal security service told European investigators that the border guard officers who had checked the crew never boarded the boat, contradicting the prosecutor’s claim.

In one instance, Polish prosecutors told their European counterparts that no explosives were found on the Andromeda, although no forensic investigation had taken place. Yet the Polish internal security service told European investigators that the border guard officers who had checked the crew never boarded the boat, contradicting the prosecutor’s claim.

German investigators waited at least two months before obtaining a meeting with their Polish counterparts in mid-May last year, according to the European officials. They left the meeting with the impression that some Polish colleagues were unwilling or unable to cooperate.
...
In September, Stanislaw Zaryn, a senior Polish official then involved in overseeing Poland’s security services, dismissed the findings that the Andromeda crew was behind the sabotage, saying the crew had no military training and were merely tourists “looking for fun.”
Around the same time, Poland’s internal security service circulated with European investigators alleged intelligence that the Andromeda had links with Russian espionage, which they alleged was behind the attack. Some investigators said they considered this to be disinformation.
Zaryn, who left office following the election, said in a recent interview that any Polish involvement was unlikely as Russia was plausibly behind the sabotage.

But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

[paxmao]

You're just all kinds of confused here aren't you? Isn't bias pretty much the opposite of credibility? If you you know that Fox news is biased towards Trump so you adjust for their bias when reading their coverage that's cherry picking to you?

This makes no sense. Can tell by the percentage of loaded and otherwise idiotic questions with relation to the total content of your post, in this case 100%.

You can stop pretending, I doubt anyone here believes that you just found the article browsing Guardian's website and thought "hm, this sounds credible". You lifted this from whatever sewage you lift all your Kremlin talking points and thought that those western idiots in this thread would surely believe anything coming from their western media because obviously all western media works the same and does only what Biden tells it to do.

Hate to disappoint you, but this is so ludicrous outside of Putinstan that you're really wasting your time trying this cherry-picking shit over and over again. Just post links to Medvedev's drunk telegram posts and we'll at least know that you're being honest.

Actually i just browse news aggregator sites like news.google.com for keyword "Ukraine" and filter for last day to stay updated on the topic. But keep thinking that i'm an agent of Kremlin. It's interesting to watch your reaction when i point to western media pivoting, which is typically a precursor to political pivot.

Circling back to Nord Stream missed this one from few days back

Nord Stream Probe Hampered by Resistance From Poland

BERLIN—Polish officials have resisted cooperating with an international probe into the sabotage of the Nord Stream natural-gas pipelines and failed to disclose potentially crucial evidence, according to European investigators working on the case.
Those Polish officials have been slow to provide information and withheld key evidence about the alleged saboteurs’ movements on Polish soil, investigators said. They are now hoping the new government in Warsaw, which took office in December, will help shed light on the attack.

European investigators have long believed the attack was launched from Ukraine via Poland. But they say Warsaw’s failure to fully cooperate has made it hard to establish whether the attack happened with or without the former Polish government’s knowledge, according to senior officials.
...

But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

The only fact is that, as I said, there is only speculation and you, as usual, copy-paste whatever article seems to be friendly to your version. So... nothing new here. BTW, I do see an newspaper speaking on behalf of the "European Investigators", not a quote of whatever the "investigators" have "investigated" or whatever they have said, so first problem here: not the original source, which should be easy to access for a super-news-aggregator user like you.

Ruzzia could have done it yes. The fact that the Polish are accused of not being cooperative by the "investigators" is nothing new, they are rarely fast or cooperative with the Germans the "investigators" - perhaps due to some bad experiences with Germans "investigators".

[BADecker]

~


But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

The only fact is that, as I said, there is only speculation and you, as usual, copy-paste whatever article seems to be friendly to your version. So... nothing new here. BTW, I do see an newspaper speaking on behalf of the "European Investigators", not a quote of whatever the "investigators" have "investigated" or whatever they have said, so first problem here: not the original source, which should be easy to access for a super-news-aggregator user like you.

Ruzzia could have done it yes. The fact that the Polish are accused of not being cooperative by the "investigators" is nothing new, they are rarely fast or cooperative with the Germans the "investigators" - perhaps due to some bad experiences with Germans "investigators".

Oh quit crying now that even you can see that Ukraine is destroyed. If Ukraine had given up in the first 2 months of the war, think of all the soldiers that would still be alive. Think of how the lands and structures of Ukraine would never have been destroyed. But no. You want to keep the war going.

[covfefe_]

~


But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

The only fact is that, as I said, there is only speculation and you, as usual, copy-paste whatever article seems to be friendly to your version. So... nothing new here. BTW, I do see an newspaper speaking on behalf of the "European Investigators", not a quote of whatever the "investigators" have "investigated" or whatever they have said, so first problem here: not the original source, which should be easy to access for a super-news-aggregator user like you.

Ruzzia could have done it yes. The fact that the Polish are accused of not being cooperative by the "investigators" is nothing new, they are rarely fast or cooperative with the Germans the "investigators" - perhaps due to some bad experiences with Germans "investigators".

Oh quit crying now that even you can see that Ukraine is destroyed. If Ukraine had given up in the first 2 months of the war, think of all the soldiers that would still be alive. Think of how the lands and structures of Ukraine would never have been destroyed. But no. You want to keep the war going.

Or could have just agreed to the Minsk agreement. They could have kept their lands back than and there would not have been dead Ukrainians and Russian.

[LTU_btc]

Or could have just agreed to the Minsk agreement. They could have kept their lands back than and there would not have been dead Ukrainians and Russian.

Minsk agreement wasn't a solution. It just kept conflict frozen with Donbas and Luhansk regions occupied by Russia. This agreement just gave time for Russia to prepare for invasion.

[BADecker]

^^^ Or the warmongers in the US government could have let Trump win in 2020. Then no invasion of Ukraine would have happened.

But they couldn't do that. They WANTED the war. That's why they are warmongers. You can see by how much money and arms they sent to Ukraine just to kill off as many people over there as possible.

[paxmao]

~


But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

The only fact is that, as I said, there is only speculation and you, as usual, copy-paste whatever article seems to be friendly to your version. So... nothing new here. BTW, I do see an newspaper speaking on behalf of the "European Investigators", not a quote of whatever the "investigators" have "investigated" or whatever they have said, so first problem here: not the original source, which should be easy to access for a super-news-aggregator user like you.

Ruzzia could have done it yes. The fact that the Polish are accused of not being cooperative by the "investigators" is nothing new, they are rarely fast or cooperative with the Germans the "investigators" - perhaps due to some bad experiences with Germans "investigators".

Oh quit crying now that even you can see that Ukraine is destroyed. If Ukraine had given up in the first 2 months of the war, think of all the soldiers that would still be alive. Think of how the lands and structures of Ukraine would never have been destroyed. But no. You want to keep the war going.

Here comes dumBAss with all his Geopolitical knowledge honed during years of catching rattlesnakes in South Texas with the "dumBAss" peace plan. He is an absolute genius!!!! The plan contains just a single point "Ukraine surrenders, war is over". I mean, what could go wrong with this?

dumBAss, why don't you ask yourself a question: Would you peace plan be the same when if Ruzzia was invading Texas? All you need to do is give Texas to Ruzzia and Texas would not be destroyed nor the US would spend money and people fighting.

Ukraine is doing what any independent country would do dumBAss. Get this into your head: there is no option to simply give Ukraine to Ruzzia. It will never stop there, there will be war after war and a huge bill of Cold war and militarised frontiers. As there is no option for the US to ignore the only few real allies they have left: Europe.

Your option for peace does not exist.

[tvbcof]

...

...

Oh quit crying now that even you can see that Ukraine is destroyed. If Ukraine had given up in the first 2 months of the war, think of all the soldiers that would still be alive. Think of how the lands and structures of Ukraine would never have been destroyed. But no. You want to keep the war going.

This is a super-obvious ethnic cleansing, and a lot of people on pretty much all sides are in favor of it for a variety of self-serving reasons.  Hell, even I cannot get to myself to be too sad about the deletion of some of some fraction of these people.  Unfortunately the worst of them (with the NAZI tattoos and such) are being preserved works elswhere around the world and it's mainly the peasants are loaded into the hopper as is the customary way of dealing with goyim slavs in this region.

Anyway, the 'paxmao' thing seems like it's probably just a typical 'normie' furthering the current ethnic cleansing operation.  Just more productive than average.

[DaRude]

Actually i just browse news aggregator sites like news.google.com for keyword "Ukraine" and filter for last day to stay updated on the topic. But keep thinking that i'm an agent of Kremlin. It's interesting to watch your reaction when i point to western media pivoting, which is typically a precursor to political pivot.

Circling back to Nord Stream missed this one from few days back

European investigators have long believed the attack was launched from Ukraine via Poland....

But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

The only fact is that, as I said, there is only speculation and you, as usual, copy-paste whatever article seems to be friendly to your version. So... nothing new here. BTW, I do see an newspaper speaking on behalf of the "European Investigators", not a quote of whatever the "investigators" have "investigated" or whatever they have said, so first problem here: not the original source, which should be easy to access for a super-news-aggregator user like you.

Ruzzia could have done it yes. The fact that the Polish are accused of not being cooperative by the "investigators" is nothing new, they are rarely fast or cooperative with the Germans the "investigators" - perhaps due to some bad experiences with Germans "investigators".

Convenient no? Especially when you evade answering what kind of proof would convince you that Ukraine stood behind Nord Stream sabotage. Also, it's quite funny watching you discredit WSJ when it doesn't fit your narative

[paxmao]

Actually i just browse news aggregator sites like news.google.com for keyword "Ukraine" and filter for last day to stay updated on the topic. But keep thinking that i'm an agent of Kremlin. It's interesting to watch your reaction when i point to western media pivoting, which is typically a precursor to political pivot.

Circling back to Nord Stream missed this one from few days back

European investigators have long believed the attack was launched from Ukraine via Poland....

But hey no "facts" here, so must mean that Russia did it, but then now Poles are covering for Russia!?!?


Edi: Added the left out Wall Street Journal citation

The only fact is that, as I said, there is only speculation and you, as usual, copy-paste whatever article seems to be friendly to your version. So... nothing new here. BTW, I do see an newspaper speaking on behalf of the "European Investigators", not a quote of whatever the "investigators" have "investigated" or whatever they have said, so first problem here: not the original source, which should be easy to access for a super-news-aggregator user like you.

Ruzzia could have done it yes. The fact that the Polish are accused of not being cooperative by the "investigators" is nothing new, they are rarely fast or cooperative with the Germans the "investigators" - perhaps due to some bad experiences with Germans "investigators".

Convenient no? Especially when you evade answering what kind of proof would convince you that Ukraine stood behind Nord Stream sabotage. Also, it's quite funny watching you discredit WSJ when it doesn't fit your narative

A proof in the conventional sense would be enough. That is not a suspicion or an activity that is not clearly understood or a single sourced "proof". The same to you: What would it take you to think the opposite?

BTW fireworks today again on board of Ruzzian ship (I have to see more sources on this), but it seems that along with a large fuel depot, a gunpowder factory in Ruzzia, a largui-sh patrol boat is not a coraline habitat.

[paxmao]

A blast in an oil depot / export facility in St Petersburg has been reported yesterday. It seems really mind blowing that Ukraine has been able to hit critical infrastructure so far from the front, deep into what should have been a heavily defended airspace hundreds of klicks away just by the second most important Ruzzian city. If that can be hit, other stuff can certainly be hit.

[kaka_Shipai]

This is the only conflict in which i can stay neutral and i am actually neutral in it. I want to know details about it because i am curious but other then that i have no interest in it.

[paxmao]

This is the only conflict in which i can stay neutral and i am actually neutral in it. I want to know details about it because i am curious but other then that i have no interest in it.

It is ok to be neutral I guess. However, a friend of mine once said that if you do not do politics, politics are done to you. This is the same, you may not care much about Ruzzia taking a chunk of Ukraine, but next day you have a "protest" in your own country organised by the Kremlin to justify them sending "peace troops" or the like. When is international it affects all.