Colors of Blue and Gold

[Jon Banks]

The success of the Ukrainians, in taking back over 1,000 square miles of territory east of Kharkiv, the taking back of Kherson makes this story very non credible. The only divergence of aid to Ukraine is being used to rout the Russians.

When was the last time the Russian's managed to grab a 1,000 square miles of territory with a one week period? Or within a six month period? By coincidence, back to before Ukraine got significant aid, during the spring. Since this aid arrived, no such Russian sucesses. I don't think it's a coincidence. It appears that the great bulk of this aid is not being squadered and is being used to great effect.

Ukraine was able to quickly liberate Kharkiv and half of Kherson because the Russians so far have avoided allowing their troops to be surrounded and captured or killed in huge numbers. In contrast, Ukraine has fought to the last man in many battles. It's estimated that between 100,000 and 200,000 Ukrainians have been killed in action so far.

I don't think anyone at this point underestimates the bravery and willingness to fight on the Ukrainian side. However, it takes more than that for them to defeat the world's second or third largest military. Unless the US or NATO directly intervenes, a stalemate is the best-case scenario for Ukraine in this war. They will not militarily defeat Russia, a country that has three times more people and doesn't need to rely on other countries for military and financial aid.

Ukraine started this war with over 2000 tanks? What happened to their tanks? Why are they begging western countries for tanks all the sudden? Why are they begging for aircraft and air defenses? They had all those things when the war began. Obviously, Russia destroyed most of the weapons and ammo that Ukraine had at the start of the war. Which is why I remain doubtful that the new weapons we're sending to Ukraine will fundamentally change the path they're on from a potential stalemate to Ukraine outright winning the war...

[Martin Weidmann]

Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed.  Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it.  HA HA HA.  Comedy gold.  Your profound ignorance of the topic is more proof of my point.  So hilarious.   Here is the point, however, for anyone with a functional brain.  The mainstream US press did not cover the story.  That is where most people get their news on Ukraine.  They do not scour You Tube every day looking for posts (which even You Tube buries) searching for obscure stories on Ukraine's treatment of POWs.   Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media.  If the Russians had been taped executing Ukranian prisoners, the story would have run hourly on CNN and MSNBC for weeks.  They have an agenda.  It is endless war.

So much stupidity, it's beyond hilarious.

Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed.

You don't even understand the contradiction in terms applied here!   

Let me dumb it down as much as I can for you. A video that is available for viewing, regardless where, isn't suppressed! Perhaps some outlets did not use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that the video was available to them.

Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it.

This obsession of yours with where I live is really getting out of hand. Get some help! And while you are at it, get your head examined as well. There clearly is something wrong with it, when you believe that where somebody lives determines what he should or should not be aware of. As I said before, unlike you, I have a life and far better things to do than watch YouTube videos all the time.

The mainstream US press did not cover the story.

So what? Did Fox cover it? I can't find a single video about it on YouTube

Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media.

Pathetically hilarious. Your bias is showing. US media may have ignored the story (if that's what happened), but you can't suppress a video that's already out there in the public domain.

[Jon Banks]

On the numerous videos of Russian POWs being tortured or killed by Ukrainian forces, no, the mainstream media didn't censor those stories.

The NY Times covered one such incident in-depth last November

Videos Suggest Captive Russian Soldiers Were Killed at Close Range
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/11/20/world/europe/russian-soldiers-shot-ukraine.html

What they did was express more skepticism than they typically do when Russian war crimes are alleged and they didn't give these stories as much coverage as alleged war crimes by Russian forces.

All of this is to say that the media, at least here in the US, has been one-sided or heavily biased in favor of Ukraine. Which is fine and understandable but it's something that could paint a misleading narrative of what is going on in Ukraine and I believe it does. Many Americans believe Ukraine is winning the war in spite of their dire need for more money and weapons.

[Richard Smith]

So much stupidity, it's beyond hilarious.

Only an "idiot" would suggest that because a video is available somewhere on You Tube that means it is not being suppressed.

You don't even understand the contradiction in terms applied here!   

Let me dumb it down as much as I can for you. A video that is available for viewing, regardless where, isn't suppressed! Perhaps some outlets did not use it, but that doesn't alter the fact that the video was available to them.

Particularly after admitting that even though you allegedly "live" in "Europe" that you were completely unaware of it.

This obsession of yours with where I live is really getting out of hand. Get some help! And while you are at it, get your head examined as well. There clearly is something wrong with it, when you believe that where somebody lives determines what he should or should not be aware of. As I said before, unlike you, I have a life and far better things to do than watch YouTube videos all the time.

The mainstream US press did not cover the story.

So what? Did Fox cover it? I can't find a single video about it on YouTube

Because there are references to it on You Tube does not mean it has not been suppressed by the US mass media.

Pathetically hilarious. Your bias is showing. US media may have ignored the story (if that's what happened), but you can't suppress a video that's already out there in the public domain.

Whew.  You don't understand the difference between someone posting a video on You Tube and the mainstream media running it as a major story.  HA HA HA.  It's just another day in "Europe" going down the rabbit hole of ignorance.

[Martin Weidmann]

Whew.  You don't understand the difference between someone posting a video on You Tube and the mainstream media running it as a major story.  HA HA HA.  It's just another day in "Europe" going down the rabbit hole of ignorance.

More stupidity on full display. Mainstream media not running a story, that's already out there, is not suppressing a story!

[Richard Smith]

More stupidity on full display. Mainstream media not running a story, that's already out there, is not suppressing a story!

You should work for Facebook with logic like that.  Unreal.  Suppression, of course, is different than total censorship.  Maybe you have lived in "Europe" too long to understand the obvious distinction.  Suppression means that dissemination is limited.  And how exactly would anyone know what stories are being completely censored since they would never be known?  Logic doesn't play any role in the contrarian fantasy world, however.

[Martin Weidmann]

You should work for Facebook with logic like that.  Unreal.  Suppression, of course, is different than total censorship.  Maybe you have lived in "Europe" too long to understand the obvious distinction.  Suppression means that dissemination is limited.  And how exactly would anyone know what stories are being completely censored since they would never be known?  Logic doesn't play any role in the contrarian fantasy world, however.

A story that is being suppressed doesn't see the light of day.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suppression

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppression

Suppression is censorship. You can not censor or suppress a story that's already in the public domain!

It's utterly amazing that something so obvious needs to be explained to you.

Care to try again?

[Richard Smith]

A story that is being suppressed doesn't see the light of day.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/suppression

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/suppression

Suppression is censorship. You can not censor or suppress a story that's already in the public domain!

It's utterly amazing that something so obvious needs to be explained to you.

Care to try again?