Quote (Hobbiks @ Mar 18 2024 11:38am)
Oh, so it wasn't two rhetorical questions? In that case: I've read both of the articles and if you believe that they are nonsense then I would like you to explain on what grounds you disagree with them?
Its difficult for me to believe that anyone would dispute on the ground footage from Emmy winning journalists, literally showing how you can find the information all on your own, but apparently you believe you can do that? 10 years after the fact? Go ahead.
Some people in this thread will gladly argue that there was no Russian interference. As I quoted earlier in the thread, Putin quite literally said that there were 0 boots on the ground in Ukraine by Russia at first, something that got so heavily disputed and laughed at by every single serious journalistic outlet that the argument is now that Russians were there but not in a military capacity (something the metadata and investigative journalism I linked to shows without question).
^This video, specifically, I think is very telling.
You really need to work on your reading comprehension. Maybe that's why you don't see any problems with those articles?
