The Hasty Withdrawal of Russian Special Forces from Luhansk Linked to the Threat of Rebellion

a reply to: Xcathdra


You guys keep fighting like little girls.

It's a good article and I enjoyed reading it. I like the part in the blog that said "we will choose our own history for Ukraine". Jaja

originally posted by: XcathdraThe Hasty Withdrawal of Russian Special Forces from Luhansk Linked to the Threat of Rebellion,...former serviceman of the 3rd Spetsnaz Brigade, close to military personnel of the brigade, told the story on condition of anonymity....

The individuals reading this will need to decide for themselves the accuracy of the information contained.

Just another propaganda fairy tail. Well known fake.

en.wikipedia.org...

originally posted by: greyhat

originally posted by: XcathdraThe Hasty Withdrawal of Russian Special Forces from Luhansk Linked to the Threat of Rebellion,...former serviceman of the 3rd Spetsnaz Brigade, close to military personnel of the brigade, told the story on condition of anonymity....

The individuals reading this will need to decide for themselves the accuracy of the information contained.

Just another propaganda fairy tail. Well known fake.

en.wikipedia.org...

The FSB has edited that wikipedia page to spread its own propaganda... but you knew that, didn't you?

a reply to: greyhat

One of the sources is Russian media. If you read the bottom of the wiki page you would have also seen that.


Ironically enough the self proclaimed peoples republics are claiming it was Georgian special forces in Ukraine who caught the Russians. Hilariously enough, and not surprising, they try to blame Georgia while at the same time saying they caught Russian troops in Ukraine.

It doesn't change the fact active duty Russian military special forces were captured in Ukraine.

a reply to: Legman

Not at all.. Information is posted and people would rather launch personal attacks instead of posting information to refute the information in the blog/article/source.

It happens a lot when dealing with the Ukraine Russia topic. For examples just look at other threads and you will see they do the same in those threads as well.

I made it a point to inform the reader they would need to come to their own conclusions based on the source. Something they fail to do when they try to use blog sites as an official source. As an example fortruss.

In this instance you have Reuters and Russian media reporting on the soldiers being captured in Ukraine.

a reply to: Xcathdra

Read it, eat it, even the BBC pulled that fake story.

BBC pull back

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: greyhat

What does a report about protests have to do with what the topic is? Secondly they have already admitted they are active duty Russian Spetnaz and at no point have they ever stated they were part of the local rebel groups.

and no, it has not been debunked yet.

What is interesting is how the Wikipedia entry reads. Whoever posted the info does not speak fluent English.

originally posted by: greyhat
a reply to: Xcathdra

Read it, eat it, even the BBC pulled that fake story.

BBC pull back

en.wikipedia.org...

Of course you miss the crucial thing about the BBC pulling the story: If a reliable Western media outlet cannot find enough corroborating sources, it will not publish a story, or pull it if it published too soon. Most Russian media publish what the Kremlin tells them to and just pretend they never said anything that wasn't true. Remember this smoking gun?



Has that Russian TV station withdrawn it claim yet?

a reply to: greyhat

Read it, eat it, even the BBC pulled that fake story

SO did you notice this at the bottom of the wiki page...

This page was last modified on 24 May 2015, at 08:21.

en.wikipedia.org...

Seems someone was a busy little Russian changing the wiki page...seems Russia is very good at changing wiki pages, remember the SU 25 debacle?

Kelsey Atherton (July 23, 2014). "Could this old warplane really shoot down MH17? A weak theory about a strong plane". Popular Science. On Monday morning, someone from an IP address in Moscow edited the Su-25's Russian Wikipedia page to increase the maximum height the plane can reach by about 10,000 feet. (details)

Leaders (July 26, 2014). "A web of lies: Vladimir Putin's epic deceits have grave consequences for his people and the outside world". Economist. The Russian fiction that a Ukrainian fighter jet had fired the missile ran into the problem that the jet could not fly at the altitude of MH17, so Russian hackers then changed a Wikipedia entry to say that the jets could briefly do so. (details)

en.wikipedia.org...

So as far as the story being fake...seems Russia doesn't like the truth out.

As for the BBC article you should know it was removed when they found that the source of the info was wrong, just as they did here...



Good try, but you may need to try harder.

a reply to: DJW001

Has that Russian TV station withdrawn it claim yet?

Is that a trick question?

a reply to: greyhat

Read it, eat it, even the BBC pulled that fake story.

And they tell you why in the first two sentences...

We made this decision because the sources of this information were not sufficiently reliable.

That's what journalists do when they find out the story isn't what it's supposed to be.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Yes, of cause. And a pulled fake story isnt usable for war mongering propaganda anymore, right?

If your military industrial complex needs a good war, go and have some with Mexico or Canada, but not in the European backyard!

a reply to: greyhat

Yes, of cause. And a pulled fake story isnt usable for war mongering propaganda anymore, right?

Have they used it for any after pulling it?

Seems you may be confusing Russian media with Western media, as Russian media will use whatever they can to make a story which has been proven time and time again here on ATS concerning the conflict in Ukraine.

As I showed you a report that came out early on with MH17 that was removed because it was not reliable...guess what it only get's brought up by those who support Russian activity in Ukraine and hasn't been used as propaganda by the west, so why would they use a false report now?

If your military industrial complex needs a good war, go and have some with Mexico or Canada, but not in the European backyard!

Last time I checked the US doesn't have any military fighting in Ukraine...so how is it our war?

And remember it was Russia who invaded and annexed part of Ukraine not the US.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Last time I checked the US doesn't have any military fighting in Ukraine...so how is it our war?

And remember it was Russia who invaded and annexed part of Ukraine not the US.

You paid for that revolt in Ukraine, 5 billion, ask Nuland. And the crimean peninsula became only accidentially Ukrainian territory in the 1950s. Its full of Russian interests and historically a part of russia.

If the russians would invest such an amount of money in a zapatist revolution in Mexico i would also understand if the US would intervene. You dont play games in a nuclear powers backyard.

Btw.: You could pull your military consultatnts and contractors.

www.google.com...

a reply to: Xcathdra

While everything should be taken with a bucket of salt, it's true that morale is the hardest thing to maintain in any modern army.

Even when a nation is fighting for its very existence it's hard to maintain that morale, but when you're hearing your own government abandoning your comrades in that way it makes it even more difficult to remain loyal and serving.

So, I'm dubious of the source, but I think it's totally believable and understandable given the way the Russian government is treating its own armed forces with secret burials and abandoning of the captured.

originally posted by: greyhat
a reply to: Xcathdra

Read it, eat it, even the BBC pulled that fake story.

BBC pull back

en.wikipedia.org...

Ah, the tactic of the Russian propagandist - if the story isn't going in your favor, attempt to distract everyone with something completely unrelated to it, while pretending that it's the same thing...

Yeah, we're all on to your tactics, and they fail every time.

a reply to: greyhat

You paid for that revolt in Ukraine, 5 billion, ask Nuland.

You do understand it was sent over a decade right, so the US has been planning this for 10 years and two different presidents...really?

And the crimean peninsula became only accidentially Ukrainian territory in the 1950s. Its full of Russian interests and historically a part of russia.

So Russia gave them Crimea on accident and after almost 65 years just decided that they want it back...I guess the presidents before Putin weren't Russian enough to take it back.

If the russians would invest such an amount of money in a zapatist revolution in Mexico i would also understand if the US would intervene. You dont play games in a nuclear powers backyard.

Remember Cuba...

Btw.: You could pull your military consultatnts and contractors.

The consultants were asked for by the Ukraine gov't...as far as contractors they are private companies that don't need the US permission to work in another country, but there has yet been proof that US contractors are operating in Ukraine.

DO you think you have that proof, because as of yet nobody has been able to provide any.

originally posted by: greyhat

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
Last time I checked the US doesn't have any military fighting in Ukraine...so how is it our war?

And remember it was Russia who invaded and annexed part of Ukraine not the US.

You paid for that revolt in Ukraine, 5 billion, ask Nuland. And the crimean peninsula became only accidentially Ukrainian territory in the 1950s. Its full of Russian interests and historically a part of russia.

If the russians would invest such an amount of money in a zapatist revolution in Mexico i would also understand if the US would intervene. You dont play games in a nuclear powers backyard.

Btw.: You could pull your military consultatnts and contractors.

www.google.com...

Here's a link from the Kremlin mouthpiece itself.

RT.............

This is no conspiracy theory. On December 13, 2013, Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland, following her third trip to Ukraine in five weeks, told the National Press Club: "Since Ukraine's independence in 1991 the United States has…invested over $5 billion to assist Ukraine in needs and other goals."

RT

$5 billion over 20 years does not fund a revolution.

In 1994 we gave Russia/soviet union 2.5 billion alone. We continued to send aid to Russia until 2012. Talk about the law of diminishing returns.

source

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Ask Green Group.

www.ggcorp.org...
observer.com...