Qatar, and by extension of cash money also Al Jazeera, is very anti-Iran.

I’m not seeing any news of this at all in Iranian media, which actually is fairly tabloid and weight lifting is a big thing in Iran. Even if you want to tell yourself the regime has absolute control over information, which isn’t true, they’d still need to provide a cover story due to the high profile nature of it and I don’t see one.

Also Iranian social media is vibrant and also I don’t see anything in Persian but maybe I’m using the wrong search terms?

All I see are the bbc and the telegraph and cnn etc etc etc repeating almost exactly the same story word for word.

It seems like fake news to me. The classic case of one biased journalist writing a story, sending it to AP, and the entire western media just repeating the thing word for word because it’s free news inches and posting propaganda of this nature is oddly enough free in our modern system of journalism.

It seems unlikely to actually be true to me. It seems more likely that it’s being syndicated without any critical enquiry because it agrees with the establishment narrative about Iran.

Ukraine should perform under the flag of Bandera

The Hungarian uprising was killing Jews in the street. It was anti-Semitic from the beginning and the “Jewish Bolshevik” idea from the Nazi era was a motivating factor with the fact several leaders of the Hungarian government were Jewish cited as a battle cry.

https://www.jta.org/2006/10/25/lifestyle/1956-crises-decimated-two-communities

After the uprising, 200,000 Hungarian Jews fled the country fearing it signaled a return of the antisemitism of the recent Nazi-collaborationist regime of the 1940s.

Sending the tanks in to stop this was a good thing. It would have been better if the anti-Semitic uprising was stopped before the pogroms started.

Yes at one point Putin sought to join NATO and the idea didn’t gain traction.

I don’t understand how you feel this helps your argument.

What are you talking about? The Cuban missile crisis was resolved by the missiles being removed and the soviet military presence ended in Cuba.

You’re factually wrong when you seem to say the soviet missiles are still there. They were removed.

The US’s security interests demanded they were removed from the nearby Cuba, and US missiles that threatened the USSR were removed from Turkey.

Peace was achieved by withdrawing the military threat from each others borders.

Likewise peace in Ukraine can only be achieved if Russia doesn’t feel threatened by a NATO presence there.

It’s easy to understand.

Yes, but the point is with Cuba, missiles were removed, peace deal was reached.

Yeah so the obvious conclusion is that peace in Cuba required satisfying the US’s demand to not have a Soviet military presence there.

Likewise peace in Ukraine requires not having a NATO military presence there.

Pretending that NATO isn’t hostile to Russia is also simply disconnected from reality. You need to connect your world view to reality.

and has survived everything the US threw at it so far

The point being the US threw a lot of shit at it because of course the US wouldn’t tolerate those missiles being there, and Russia won’t tolerate NATO being in Ukraine.

If China made a defensive alliance with Mexico that included a military base in Tijuana, Mexico would suddenly be in need of some democracy and freedom.

Continuing to deny this basic reality means your position isn’t connected to reality.

Peace requires a sustainable security situation for Russia not just for Ukraine and for Russia that means no NATO since NATO is hostile to Russia. It’s clear and denying this is just putting your head in the sand.

What do you think would happen if, hypothetically speaking, a nearby state such as, let’s say, Cuba started hosting the military assets of a hostile power?

What about even a distant nation such as oh I don’t know maybe Iran or one of the koreas started making weapons the US felt threatened by?

Just thinking aloud here I don’t know.

So the argument is that Ukraine never stood a chance in this war and the politicians in the west always knew this but they’ve been pushing the narrative that “Ukraine can still win” because it serves their purposes to send Ukrainians to die in the theory that this will weaken Russia.

The concept is known as a “bleeding sore”, going back to the Napoleonic wars when Britain used the same strategy in Spain against Napoleon. It doesn’t matter that Ukraine can’t win because the wests purpose is served by the conflict itself more than the resolution.

Note how the mask often slips and pro-war advocates talk about how “cost effective” this war is for the west because it’s Ukrainians dying and not Americans. The Polish President said this just yesterday. Ghoulish.

The west only drips in weapons, enough to keep Ukraine in the fight but laughably inadequate to win, or even reach the “first line” of Russian defensive works. The purpose of the west is served by keeping the conflict open because it’s Ukrainians and Russians dying.

I can give you a list of (deservedly or not) respected western geopolitical thinkers who were pointing out the only outcome of this war is a lot of dead Ukrainians going back to 2014. The western leaders knew this all along and they cynically decided to push for conflict and the abandonment of the Minsk II peace protocols because they saw an opportunity to get Russia bogged down in an Afghanistan-style strength-sapping conflict.

The shift in the narrative is that instead of simply beating their chests with slava Ukraine war chants, the absolute failure of the counteroffensive makes it obvious that Ukraine can’t win, and once that is acknowledged then it becomes morally untenable to argue Ukrainians should continue dying to try to force the culturally Russian regions to remain part of Ukraine.

Wait until right sector start talking about how they were stabbed in the back by western liberals

Zelenskyy fires them for taking bribes and not for grabbing people on the street and throwing them in vans.