536
Ukrainian Intelligence hacks Russian TV channels to show truth about war
(newsukraine.rbc.ua)
News and discussion related to Ukraine
Community Rules
πΊπ¦ Sympathy for enemy combatants is prohibited.
π»π€’No content depicting extreme violence or gore.
π₯Posts containing combat footage should include [Combat] in title
π·Combat videos containing any footage of a visible human involved must be flagged NSFW
β Server Rules
π³ Defense Aid π₯
π³ Humanitarian Aid βοΈβοΈ
πͺ Volunteer with the International Legionnaires
See also:
So when ruzzian TV informs about the ruzzian gore in eastern Ukraine (several 100-thousand ruzzian soldiers killed or wounded) they tell the truth? Do they inform about that bloody tragedy of their soldiers at all?
Really interested in your insights.
This isn't what I said. I associate with truth in such a context as a documentary-Wikipedia style of delivery and already that is quite difficult to do neutral, as sources and claims will diverge, e. g. about losses.
Expecting that is silly.
And so is naming this the "truth about war".
Not at all.
If you really believe that, you should know that it's VERY obvious Russia is lying all the time. There's a reason it's Russia and not Ukraine that censor news channels in Russia and news sources on the Internet. That reason being that Russia needs to do that to keep the truth from the Russians.
At no point I stated Russia's news are trustworthy. Declaring a propaganda TV interception as if it is just reading out a Wikipedia article is wild to say the least. Ukrainian official statements can't be taken for granted, at some point in the Kursk incursion the independently verified territorial gains were at about 800 sq. km. vs claimed 1200. Neither is the cultural and media market truly open, as it is wartime and the Russian Orthodox Church is too close to the government to be allowed to operate anymore. Also getting journalistic permits for the Ukrainian frontlines is nowadays more impossible than ever before in this war.
So you care about format, not content? And you rely on a crowd sourced wiki for unbiased information. Dear Lord.
Unbiased and neutral can easily be used interchangeably here, anyone with common sense could crack that code bud.
Jesus dude, you honestly need to talk to someone. You legit seem to have a narcissism problem.
You imply I think Wikipedia is per default unbiased and all truthful which it isn't and I stated clearly otherwise with "quite difficult to be neutral". So I am not sure where the misunderstanding comes from.
Bad rep for going down the personal route in a discussion.
I believe you when you say you're not sure.
You come at my reading comprehension then try to high road the convo. Dude, you're displaying every characteristic of someone who is chronically online. Take a breath and reflect lol.
I did that because the answer didn't make sense as it is an issue I just acknowledged.
If you say so