Ah yes, the unbiased commentator who goes on podcasts with Scott Ritter, uses Mediazona reporting as the absolute maximum estimate of Russian losses and did an entire video talking about how Vuhledar really wasn't a big Russian defeat
Might as well start using Scott Ritter as a source if historylegends is someone you actually watch. The whole channel is another one of the "unbiased" channels that wants to tell you the "truths that the mainstream media is trying to hide". Basically just another one of the softcore vatnik channels that tries to appeal to the contrarians and the "muh two sides crowd". The simple fact is that western and Ukrainian reporting is twenty times more reliable than 98% of Russian information on the war. Yes a lot of western sources are trash and a lot of Ukrainian ones are disinformation but for the most part at least somewhat grounded in reality whereas the Russians will tell you with a straight face that they destroyed 100 A-10's attacking with an S-500 and afterwards used it as an ASAT weapon to take out an American spy satellite armed with nukes.
What's wrong with Scott Ritter? He seems to know his stuff and is former intel/military
>b-b-but muh sex offender
The "girls" he were talking to were said to be 16 and 15 aka legal in most of Europe and about half of the US
>knows his stuff >The only crowning "achievement" is him calling out Iraq WMD bullshit. Something at least 50% of American figured out on their own on the same day Powell waved that tube around. While the other 50% of American also came to the same conclusion within the next few months.
No really, wtf else has Scott Ritter been correct about that nobody else saw a mile away anyway? You seriously think he's automatically an expert just because he said Iraqi WMD was a lie?
>You seriously think he's automatically an expert just because he said Iraqi WMD was a lie?
No, I think he is qualified because he received formal training as a military analyst
>You dodged the question. WTF has the dude been correct about that wasn't obvious to everybody else already?
It's not necessary to have an insight "before anyone else does" in order for one's analysis to be correct, so the question is besides the point.
>Former intelligence officer. >Couldn't even deduce that the 14 year old jailbait he's been chatting up to was in fact a 40 year old policeman. >Fell for the same honey trap, TWICE
You seriously think that this is the guy to listen to?
>You seriously think that this is the guy to listen to?
Expertise in one area doesn't automatically extend to another
>he received formal training
Formal training doesn't protect someone from devolving into a total moron later on. Whatever training he received was either totally useless or he flushed it out of his head by now.
> Whatever training he received was either totally useless or he flushed it out of his head by now.
proof?
11 months ago
Anonymous
>Expertise in one area doesn't automatically extend to another
moroniation however is general and extends to all areas.
So too does being a lying, bad faith debating subhuman, like you are being right now, by the way.
>Former intelligence officer. >Couldn't even deduce that the 14 year old jailbait he's been chatting up to was in fact a 40 year old policeman. >Fell for the same honey trap, TWICE
You seriously think that this is the guy to listen to?
>he received formal training
Formal training doesn't protect someone from devolving into a total moron later on. Whatever training he received was either totally useless or he flushed it out of his head by now.
Scott Ritter in a nutshell goes more or less like this:
>Did you know that the US is in fact, bad >The Ukrainians have without exaggeration had about 800k KIA >Time to regurgitate predictions that everyone else has already made >Raises voice and halfway shouts Russian propaganda points with little to no relevance to the war >Some generic statement about Russia not being committed to the war >Some vague statements about how the war will end in two weeks
If you wish to defend Scott for showing his wiener to a self-proclaimed 15 year old when he was almost 50 feel free to do so, but there is way more to this guy.
He's one of those retired military guys like Douglas Macgregor or Armchair Warlord who for one reason or another started to hate the US military and have ever since dedicated their lives to cheerleading for whatever authoritarian shithole the US is currently at odds with. They endlessly lie, double down and refuse to acknowledge any errors, often portraying Russia in better way than actual Russian state media.
>He's one of those retired military guys like Douglas Macgregor or Armchair Warlord who for one reason or another started to hate the US military and have ever since dedicated their lives to cheerleading for whatever authoritarian shithole the US is currently at odds with.
Lol, Macgregor doesn't hate the US military, he has always advocated for reforming and improving it. Do you seriously think criticizing US foreign policy means you hate the US military?
Might as well start using Scott Ritter as a source if historylegends is someone you actually watch. The whole channel is another one of the "unbiased" channels that wants to tell you the "truths that the mainstream media is trying to hide". Basically just another one of the softcore vatnik channels that tries to appeal to the contrarians and the "muh two sides crowd". The simple fact is that western and Ukrainian reporting is twenty times more reliable than 98% of Russian information on the war. Yes a lot of western sources are trash and a lot of Ukrainian ones are disinformation but for the most part at least somewhat grounded in reality whereas the Russians will tell you with a straight face that they destroyed 100 A-10's attacking with an S-500 and afterwards used it as an ASAT weapon to take out an American spy satellite armed with nukes.
What's wrong with his face?
It's particularly noticeable when you compare him to the picture of Grant. It's like his face was stretched out over a skull that is several times too small.
why are you posting this b8 thread you filthy c**t
Ah yes, the unbiased commentator who goes on podcasts with Scott Ritter, uses Mediazona reporting as the absolute maximum estimate of Russian losses and did an entire video talking about how Vuhledar really wasn't a big Russian defeat
But he's more often right than this shitty fail board
This, I remember when morons here were still denying along with the Ukrainians that Soledar had fallen like a week after it had been taken, kek.
I wish Pakistan would nuke India already
He's not trying to be right so what the frick are you talking about
What's wrong with Scott Ritter? He seems to know his stuff and is former intel/military
>b-b-but muh sex offender
The "girls" he were talking to were said to be 16 and 15 aka legal in most of Europe and about half of the US
>knows his stuff
>The only crowning "achievement" is him calling out Iraq WMD bullshit. Something at least 50% of American figured out on their own on the same day Powell waved that tube around. While the other 50% of American also came to the same conclusion within the next few months.
No really, wtf else has Scott Ritter been correct about that nobody else saw a mile away anyway? You seriously think he's automatically an expert just because he said Iraqi WMD was a lie?
>You seriously think he's automatically an expert just because he said Iraqi WMD was a lie?
No, I think he is qualified because he received formal training as a military analyst
You dodged the question. WTF has the dude been correct about that wasn't obvious to everybody else already?
>You dodged the question. WTF has the dude been correct about that wasn't obvious to everybody else already?
It's not necessary to have an insight "before anyone else does" in order for one's analysis to be correct, so the question is besides the point.
>You seriously think that this is the guy to listen to?
Expertise in one area doesn't automatically extend to another
> Whatever training he received was either totally useless or he flushed it out of his head by now.
proof?
>Expertise in one area doesn't automatically extend to another
moroniation however is general and extends to all areas.
So too does being a lying, bad faith debating subhuman, like you are being right now, by the way.
>Former intelligence officer.
>Couldn't even deduce that the 14 year old jailbait he's been chatting up to was in fact a 40 year old policeman.
>Fell for the same honey trap, TWICE
You seriously think that this is the guy to listen to?
>he received formal training
Formal training doesn't protect someone from devolving into a total moron later on. Whatever training he received was either totally useless or he flushed it out of his head by now.
Scott Ritter in a nutshell goes more or less like this:
>Did you know that the US is in fact, bad
>The Ukrainians have without exaggeration had about 800k KIA
>Time to regurgitate predictions that everyone else has already made
>Raises voice and halfway shouts Russian propaganda points with little to no relevance to the war
>Some generic statement about Russia not being committed to the war
>Some vague statements about how the war will end in two weeks
I just saved you some time
doubt.jpg
If you wish to defend Scott for showing his wiener to a self-proclaimed 15 year old when he was almost 50 feel free to do so, but there is way more to this guy.
He's one of those retired military guys like Douglas Macgregor or Armchair Warlord who for one reason or another started to hate the US military and have ever since dedicated their lives to cheerleading for whatever authoritarian shithole the US is currently at odds with. They endlessly lie, double down and refuse to acknowledge any errors, often portraying Russia in better way than actual Russian state media.
>He's one of those retired military guys like Douglas Macgregor or Armchair Warlord who for one reason or another started to hate the US military and have ever since dedicated their lives to cheerleading for whatever authoritarian shithole the US is currently at odds with.
Lol, Macgregor doesn't hate the US military, he has always advocated for reforming and improving it. Do you seriously think criticizing US foreign policy means you hate the US military?
> literally russia today employee
> what's worng with him?
What's wrong with RT?
Horrible bait
Why do vatniks not have any good memes or reaction images
It's like they're just trying to crawl past unironic yoba posting
> defends a sex offender and thinks he's going to convince people by saying "It's okay because they were just underage!"
Kek
Will Wheaton looking homosexual
Might as well start using Scott Ritter as a source if historylegends is someone you actually watch. The whole channel is another one of the "unbiased" channels that wants to tell you the "truths that the mainstream media is trying to hide". Basically just another one of the softcore vatnik channels that tries to appeal to the contrarians and the "muh two sides crowd". The simple fact is that western and Ukrainian reporting is twenty times more reliable than 98% of Russian information on the war. Yes a lot of western sources are trash and a lot of Ukrainian ones are disinformation but for the most part at least somewhat grounded in reality whereas the Russians will tell you with a straight face that they destroyed 100 A-10's attacking with an S-500 and afterwards used it as an ASAT weapon to take out an American spy satellite armed with nukes.
Does someone have a screenshot with BAKHMUT HAS FALLEN compilation from his thumbnails?
>thoughts on a known pro-Russian grifter?
>ziggers shilling zigger shills
Very organic cumrade
>"For those that missed it, here's how it went"
>*plays clip of guy running into wall"
I laughed
What's wrong with his face?
It's particularly noticeable when you compare him to the picture of Grant. It's like his face was stretched out over a skull that is several times too small.
>HistoryLegends
I'm too lazy to edit one for him.