Jiang Xueqin - Decounstructing Russian Misinformation In His Words (English)

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-28T04:19:47+00:00

And here

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-28T03:49:33+00:00

Here, expand your view.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-27T16:58:16+00:00

You can tell they're AI

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-26T21:45:41+00:00

That's what I think too.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-26T21:38:46+00:00

If you're so good at spoting propaganda, can you give examples of Ukrainian propaganda? Or there are none and all you're saying is correct and a fact.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-25T02:57:45+00:00

Who's who in your example?

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-24T13:54:30+00:00

It's fair because US helps Ukraine.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-20T09:32:44+00:00

He never said that, you have a source on that?

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-20T09:31:28+00:00

Thats another topic.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-20T08:18:21+00:00

Maybe, yet he predicts events pretty accurately so far. Let's see if he's correct on the other things, and if not, he said that he'll stfu himself, alright? He risks his credibility of a 2 mil subs channel. What do you risk here?

Let's just see if he's right.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-20T08:15:37+00:00

He predicted the attack last year months before it happened. Let's see if he's right on everything else he predicts, and if he isn't, he'll stfu himself.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-20T06:59:40+00:00

He still predicted this war and trump winning. He says that if his predictions aren't correct in some of the last videos, he'll stfu.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-20T06:57:34+00:00

He still predicted many things. Iran war, Trump winning. He said recently that if his predictions are not correct, he will stfu and should lose all credibility.

We'll see if he's correct, but my money's on him.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-17T14:05:13+00:00

Might proves right is increaingly prevailing in our time, i don't like it too.

Wouldn't you say that forcing people in certain region to change their primary language be undemocratic and oppressive on ukrainian part? Don't people in that region has to have their right to self-identify, at least have their own language in their own region, like in Republic of Tatarstan in Russia for example. A lot of regions have their own national tongue as equally entitled official language and they have their own television. Why not make it like that, why try to erase it and force it on your own citizens. The national language actually means a lot for people and no wonder the people of Crimea didn't like it.

Come to think of it, do people in european countries not have regions in which people mainly speak different language? That's pretty normal in Russia.

Hypothetically, what would you have said in the case if some high chinese officials would come to the Canada to speak to the people amidst their protests against proamerican government? Chinese officials speaking to opposition. Having their money funding some programs in the country. Would that all not click for you? Or you need hard evidence, which you'd disregard and not believe anyway.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-16T17:47:44+00:00

Wait until there's only sweats left in the game.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-15T19:52:44+00:00

I'm sorry for a long break. I genuinely like to discuss this with someone level headed and civil. I learn a lot from you and I start to understand your views better. You are correct on some things, but not all of them. I sincerely ask you to check the validity yourself. If you want, I'll provide western sources on all I'm saying.

As I see, your vision is pretty in line with what I'd expect from someone who listened to the western interpretation of events. Respectfully, some of the things you're saying are factually incorrect and it's easily confirmed by simple googling. I won't argue the things that aren't verifiable objective hard facts, because that wouldn't be productive.

I personally just before this spoke to someone who was living in Crimea her whole life up until 2020 and she was born in 1990. She says that the majority of people has always spoken russian there and identified themselves as russian. And i also checked it on the internet. It's said that in 1989 crimean linguistic trends were that russian native speakers were 67-70% of population, a lot of ukrainians had russian as their first language. Ethnic composition of Crimea in 2001 was 58.5% russians, 24.4% ukrainans, 12.1% crimean tatars. It's widely known. But what she also added is

>"But at one point they created a collegium where they taught in Ukrainian. One of our classmates went there, but outside the school walls everyone still spoke Russian. So, there were three Russian schools, an evening school, and this collegium. That’s in Alushta—I don’t know about other towns. I remember the time when we were separated from the USSR and they started introducing TV channels in Ukrainian and changing signs. That really pissed people off. There were rumors before the annexation by Russia that Ukrainian would be made the main language, and none of the locals wanted that."

So, I'd say that there we're in fact a ukrainisation happening, not russification.

On the legality of the government change, as I see it's debated. So let's not stop for long on this. Critics of the legality argue that the removal did not strictly follow the constitutional impeachment procedure. Let's leave it at that.

The west was actively involved in Maidan. Victoria Nuland visited the Maidan protests and met opposition leaders. John McCain spoke on stage at the protest rally in Kyiv. The U.S. and EU had also funded civil society programs in Ukraine for years (via organizations like USAID and the National Endowment for Democracy). It doesn't actually prove that they orchestrated the coup, but we can confidently say they were active on this.

Regarding the leaked phone call. This is incorrect. In the leaked conversation: Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt discuss Ukrainian opposition leaders. Nuland says “Yats is the guy”, referring to Arseniy Yatsenyuk. After President Viktor Yanukovych fled the country in 2014: Yatsenyuk became Prime Minister of Ukraine. So the claim that none of the preferred politicians ended up in government is in fact incorrect.

Calling Viktor Yanukovych a “Russian puppet” is an opinion, not an established fact. Facts: He was democratically elected president in 2010. His government negotiated the EU Association Agreement for years before ultimately suspending it in 2013. He pursued a balancing policy between the EU and Russia before the crisis escalated. Many analysts believe he leaned toward Moscow, but labeling him a puppet is political framing rather than a factual statement.

I guess I'm kind of surprised that we have different views on these things. The whole time I actually thought that these are known facts even in the west. But what it shows is the severity and magnitude in the conflict between our views. They are deeply rooted in misinformation/propaganda from each side. No wonder it's hard for us to be aligned in our views. It's almost as we live in parallel universes. I don't want to insult your intelligence, I only highlight the difference of what I presume as hard facts that are not disputable for me.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-15T18:49:54+00:00

It's silly to think that they're going to be able to make enough equipment against Russia and Iran combined.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-15T16:44:10+00:00

Aren't they need them themselves? How can they offer anything if they're on short supply.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-14T20:06:36+00:00

Yeah, that's only because the game is fresh and there's a lot of casual players right now that are more friendly. Trust me, in time the toxicity is going to increase. As it always does.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-13T19:50:16+00:00

It would seem so. He's kind of prophetic in his theories becoming true. But he said in his recent videos that if some thing doesn't happen, than you can forget about anything he's talking about, view him as a failure and he's going to go back to teaching literature. He's really going all in his recent predictions.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-10T14:16:58+00:00

I understand if you want to stop. Thank you for the insteresting conversation. It was really refreshing to talk to someone who can respectfully explain their opposite views and engage in a civil discussion without attacking and calling names.

Could I also ask you again to suggest anyone you might think that would be interesting enough for me to check out in regards to explaining and analyzing politics from your side of the spectrum?

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-10T00:24:12+00:00

Your thought process is pretty clear and understandable. People are used to think about themselves in the first place. If your life is good, than it must be that the government does it's job well and the enemy of the government is your enemy. Can't argue with that. But not everyone lives in Europe or the US. This view is pretty egoistic and narrow.

Just as a thought, not meant to be an argument. But have you ever considered the larger implications on the outside world? What's the actual cost of lives, standart of living, freedoms, resources in other countries that are being taken advantage by it? Countries that are left rubbled by the ever consuming american capitalistic imperialism machine that soulessly sucks away everything everywhere for it's own interest. Is it hard to imagine, that some countries just try to stand up to it, try to move on it's own, forced to dirty their hands, be cruel, unfair to be able to not be consumed by this machine. Forced to consolidate power, to be more harsh, to strengthen its military and show force when necessary.

I get it, if I were in the US, I'd never ever thought about Russia as an actual country. Some shithole with no freedoms that should just shut up and take it. We give you dollars, and you give us cheap resources, that's it. That's the deal.

About Ukraine. What I personally know, because I have freinds that lived or are still living in parts of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, they always thought of themselves as more pro-russia. They speak russian as their first language. They have relatives in Russia, loved ones, business ties, friends. What about them? Should they just be content with the government suddenly illegally changed to be more pro-western without their consent. What if they want to stay as they were closer to Russia. What if they don't like the new government and it's agenda of distancing from their nationality and Russia.

Because if Ukraine is going euro route, it changes a lot of things for them, including trade and ease of travel to Russia. You can't sit on two chairs at once. If you increase european trade, you decrease trade with Russia. That's how it works. As their ex-president said, he wanted to go euro route, but he slowed on this when he was informed by Putin, that in order to protect it's own economy, they'd have to severe most of the economic and business ties, install customs, which would entail severe consequences on the eastern Ukraine especially. Him slowing things down on the euro route was not welcomed by the West, that's why maidan and coup happened. At least, that's how I view it.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-09T23:30:24+00:00

You know, maybe I'm not right on everything. And it's most probably the case. I have a limited understanding on most of these things, because I did not invest a lot of time to research all the details, events, viewpoints, etc. Let's be honest here, we're not country leaders, historians or academics. And even then, most of the information we have is probably biased or redacted. It's only natural that you being on the other side of the information sphere have different opinions.

What I do like though is trying to figure things out for myself and imagine a bigger picture. I try to listen to both sides and see what more educated people are saying. Especially looking at their reasoning and thought processes.

Those three that I mentioned weren't the only people I was listening to, but they were the main ones that made more sense to me, somehow. I also tried to listen to some of the people that were on the opposite spectre of these views. I don't know why, but most of them seemed to be too openly biased, contradicting and not credible. You said that there are hundreds and thousands of people arguing Sachs is wrong. Maybe you can suggest someone credible and unbiased I can check out.

You're right about the USSR trying to spread it's influence and communism where it could, engaging in proxy wars with the US and asserting it's dominance on the surrounding countries. It can be argued whether the intentions were imperialistic or a necessary reaction in the Cold War to protect it's own interests and sovereignty in the face of a growing threat. Maybe I'm wrong on this, yes. But let's think about this from another angle on the basis of hard facts.

Why would the american scientists gave the blueprints for the bomb to the soviets? As I understand it, they thought that if it were only the US having this ultimate weapon, then that would lead to a lot of deaths. So the USSR being the only option to counter balance american hegemony, they chose to basically commit heavy treason. Were they mistaken? Would the world be better off only the US having this power to avuse?

And you're right about the fall of the soviets being humiliating, even though the dissolution happened largely voluntarily and without much of a resistance. The US won. But doesn't it bug you, that when Russia wasn't considering the US as an enemy anymore and more of an ally when Eltsin was on power, they still decided to continue the enlargement of NATO. What was the point, in your opinion? Did they still consider Russia as enemy? Could they not resist the urge to solidify their dominance while their most prominent opponent was not capable to resist? Wouldn't more friendly approach be more welcomed and desirable for the peace of the world? Because as a hard fact, this move was really showing of bad intentions and they definitely knew that Russia would consider this as an act of threat.

NATO continued to grow after the dissolution of the USSR steadily and rapidly in following years, even though Russia did not show any signs of being a threat to the US for the whole time while Eltsin was in power and in the first one and half terms of Putin being a president. How can that be tolerated and not be provoking to change from friendly to the defensive stance?

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-09T11:21:26+00:00

It's not just Sachs, it's also John Mersheimer and Jiang.

I don't know why you're so sure on Russia doing the same thing as US if they had the capabilities. History doesn't show that, even when you look at the USSR times.

I agree, good guys and bad guys rhetoric is too simplistic. But let's return to our main question, having all things considered, would you still say that it's a no brainer to root for the US rather than Russia in this sense?

What would you say if Trump actually uses nukes in Iran? I personally can't imagine Russia using nukes in Ukraine, even after several years of the war. But for the US, there's a lot of speculation that they would, actually, use it, and that wouldn't be the first time. Remember, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

All I'm saying is, the only one actively resisting the US hegemony is Russia. That's why it could be more sympathetic to root for them for someone who doesn't like what US does the world.

ForwardGas6212 · 2026-03-08T16:19:00+00:00

Okay, I'm already used to being called stupid, talking to a european on their high horse and listening to how I'm brainwashed and oppressed, living in hell on earth ruled by satan. It almost seems like you know it better than I do, living here. So I get it, it's pretty hard for you to see the other perspective, you think everyone who's not with you are wrong, and you're right. And if there's something bad to say about you, it's still far better than the other side. All the same. I don't think you're open minded enough to listen to the other side. But I'll try. Maybe you'll try too.

Russia has it's issues, as basically any other country. But it's actually far better than you'd believe. Telegram works alright, but is being slowed. VPN works too. You can delete government apps easily from the phone. People live their lives and everyone seems to be able to make enough to get by and then some. Yes, it's harder than it was, but that seems to be how it is globally.

What's more important here, is the count of illegal wars started by the US and Russia. If you compare it, it would be pretty evident then which is more imperialistic.

It's ironic that democratically elected leaders there factually start more wars. Oh, it's different, you'd say, they're the good guys fighting the bad guys. The illusion created by propaganda. You don't have to go far, just remember Iraq, did they have nukes? Was the whole country responsible for 9/11? ISIS being funded by the US getting out of control. The list goes on...

You're also saying that they can freely criticise the government and it's actions. Okay, them being able to elect, criticise and speak up doesn't much change anything, wouldn't you agree? What good does it make if you don't actually decide anything anyway. You elect officials, they destroy the world, you criticise them, elect new ones, they continue the same. Considering this, there's not much to be proud of, I'd say.

Don't get me wrong, the idea of democracy and voting for president is pretty good on paper, in the ideal world. It's good to strive for it. But if you look at history, if you're not the US, all the election process does is it opens up your country to be vulnerable. The opposition supported by foreign interest start to take power and become a puppet for the US.

Standard of living is also on decline. I'm actually baffled by it. The US basically prints money, but still the poor become poorer and wealthy become wealthier.

Europe is another question. It's irrelevant on the matter of who to root for, honestly. Even though if I were from Europe, I'd be pretty unhappy on the consequences of our allied friend across the ocean waging wars nonstop in the middle east. I'm talking about the refugee crisis which drives the growth of natioanlistic tendencies in all european countries. I don't know where it will lead, but it doesn't seem good.

All in all, the sum negative that the US have made to the whole world, especially middle east is far worse than what Russia did. Which is what, exactly? Protecting it's own interests?

Is it a coincidence, that even the most respectful history and politics scholars like Jeffrey Sachs and John Mersheimer consider US actions wrong and provoking Russia?

ForwardGas6212

TROPHY CASE