So NPR, BBC, Al-Jazeera, PBS, VOA, and many others are off the table for you?

Should we ban BBC and NPR as well? How about any newspaper that has been shown to be infiltrated or complicit with state propaganda operations like the NYT?

Intermittent fasting + keto diet + eating less + constant hydration. If you add some exercise to that, you will see very fast early results. It won’t get you all the way, but a month straight of that and you will easily see fat reduction.

So evil for ending the cycle of famines, defeating the Third Reich, establishing autonomy for historically repressed cultures, improving quality of life and standard of living for millions, pioneering an entirely new form of democracy, advancing the science and engineering of spaceflight, space exploration, medical practices, and vaccines, advancing women’s liberation beyond anything in the Western world, and tirelessly working against the effects of North Atlantic imperialism - that is until the revisionists began the process of liberalization and European rapprochement that ultimately led to the suffering of its people, the dismantling of the Union, massive morality from liberal economic shock therapy.

So ridiculous. Do you still believe in the black book despite its authors renouncing it?

No one was ever deported/denied entry to China because they had a Winnie the Pooh image on their phone.

Oh. Now I see the problem - you’re still operating with centuries-old thinking. You think “war with Russia” means France launching a unilateral invasion of Russia.

Funding NATO is literally the equivalent of preparing for war with Russia. NATO was formed explicitly to counter the USSR. It was staffed with Nazi officers from the Third Reich on the basis that the Third Reich was 100% dedicated to destroying the Soviet Union and enslaving Russia. When the USSR was dissolved, NATO didn’t dissolve itself, it became an openly aggressive military force launching invasions of several countries under various pretenses.

The idea of austerity for increased NATO funding can only be interpreted as money for war with Russia. Sure, you can pretend NATO is purely defensive but even if that’s the case it’s still accurate to say that France is engaging in austerity to fund a war with Russia, just a defensive one.

The reality, however, is that the West has been hell bent on dominating Russia for over 200 years and the quintessential example of that history is Napoleon’s campaign to invade Russia - one of the deadliest canpaigns in history. And since the Third Reich was also a Western attempt to invade Russia resulting in massive bloodshed, it becomes really difficult to ignore the obvious problem of France funding NATO (remember, originally helmed with handpicked Third Reich officers) as some kind of “just defensive pact” especially when NATO dropped DU bombs on Yugoslavia in its supposed war for humanitarianism, and NATO’s involvement in offensive operations in East Asia.

So you may take issue with the imagined implication that France is going to send an army under the French flag to march on Moscow - I think that’s silly too. But you’re arguing against a strawman.

Go look at numbers for anywhere outside of the North Atlantic Euro-American imperial core and you’ll find that overwhelming majorities are commonplace.

For example, Harvard conducted a 15-year study of Chinese citizens living in China and found that 95.5% of them supported their national government and believed it was working in their best interests.

So it’s balanced when the sources are NYT, BBC, NPR, Cato, Rand, AP, Reuters, and WaPo, but throw Sputnik in there and suddenly there’s misinformation? You might have a really broken sense of reality.

It’s literally an article from a British news source that is pro-Ukraine. The fact that you are focused on the poster and not the posted is the purest form of ad hominem. You should be embarrassed.

You’re this far into being aware of the conflict and you have to use a comment section to educate yourself on basic facts?

Well, now that Russia is occupying an American lithium field, maybe the US will say Russia is attacking the US.

I wonder if the whole point of the mineral deal with Ukraine was to create a new cassus belli

Oh yeah, I got spam bombed by one but also got harassed by a few others.

Unsolicited abusive DMs - such a common trope among reactionaries

Love that libs are down voting actual truth because it comes from RT instead of BBC

Punch a tree until it falls. Make an axe out of wood. Use it to chop more trees down. Find shelter for the night. Build a crafting table. Wait until sunrise. Run around until I find sheep. Kill them for wool. Make a bed.

Oh fuck I didn’t even read the rest of your drivel.

Japan was LITERALLY NEGOTIATING SURRENDER when the US nuked two civilian cities.

WW2, Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iranian coup, death squads in Latin America

What are you even taking about?

That opinion article is absolute trash.

The idea that the Bolsheviks fought to preserve the boundaries of the Tsarist empire, including invading Ukraine, is absolute nonsense. Ukraine was one the founding members of the Union and the USSR was the first formation that recognized Ukrainians as a nation and actively promoted their distinct national heritage, language, and culture.

The Bolsheviks did fight against a subset of Ukrainians, specifically the anarchists, because the anarchists literally organized an army and said “now that the Russian revolution is over they are weak and this is our time to strike”. So they were crushed. But not in any way, shape, or form because of a reasserting of Tsarist imperialism.

So yes, this article is complete Western consent-manufacturing trash and can be safely ignored as such.