https://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/?p=314772
From what I've now researched, Ukraine's tank losses aren't unusually poor given the drone-heavy, high-attrition nature of this war. These rates align with historical norms in conflicts like WWII or the Gulf War, where both sides face massive equipment losses.
Evidence? From credible sources? No. The trail clearly points toward Kremlin-backed outlets.
At the bottom of this page we see this article originated from Sputnikglobe.com - is this a trustworthy objective source?
SputnikGlobe.com (formerly Sputnik News)
- Background and Insights: A subsidiary of Rossiya Segodnya, directly funded by the Russian government since 2014. It's an official propaganda tool, with content approved by state censors.
This article originates from a Swiss site called https://globalbridge.ch/ that promotes pro-Russian narratives and it'ssource is a Russian newspaper called Komsomolskaya Pravda
"(Globalbridge Ed.) A few days ago appeared in the Russian newspaper «Komsomolskaya Pravda» an article by Russian military specialist Victor Baranets, which describes how the Russian army destroyed a secret underground bunker near Lviv with a Kinschal rocket."
PressTV.ir: Iran’s English-language mouthpiece—where “news” comes with a heavy side of state seasoning.
The Rob Scholte Musem in Holland also references Komsomolskaya Pravda as it's source. Unclear why the site now hosts propaganda. Hacked? Looks more normal in 2017 based on the Internet Archive:-
Did not look into this further.
Is "https://worldeventssienervanrensburg.wordpress.com/" a trustworthy site and a good source of truthful data? World Events Siener Van Rensburg
"NATO Soldiers and Officers Die When Western Air Defense Systems Are Destroyed in Ukraine. This revelation is made by Foreign Affairs magazine according to Russian media."
Naapuriseura.fi is the website of Naapuriseura Ry, a Finnish association whose online magazine, Naapuriseuran Sanomat, publishes content aligned with Russian state narratives. It spreads pro-Russian perspectives by questioning Western media portrayals of Russia, opposing NATO expansion, and criticizing sanctions, effectively amplifying Russian propaganda themes in Finland.
The pattern is obvious: every source you’ve provided either originates from or heavily relies on state-controlled Russian or Iranian media. Treating them as evidence of NATO casualties is not credible.
The problem which I've striven to illustrate here is epistemic: simply googling for something, finding a source that confirms preexisting beliefs, and treating that URL as “evidence” bypasses critical evaluation
“Epistemic” relates to knowledge, belief, or the process of knowing. It concerns how we acquire, justify, and validate information or truth claims.
For example, an “epistemic problem” is a problem about whether what we think we know is reliable or justified.
Nothing to do with losses, but intact capture and reverse engineering and studying machinery for weak points. Are you really trying to act so innocent, perhaps you are?
Your original point was it was only BORZZIKMAN making these claims, my links prove otherwise. Of course the western controlled media won’t report their own losses, they don’t want their own population anti-ww3 before they have even started it. As for what you consider a credible source it varies wildly from most. MSM still claims arabs did 9/11, the covid vaccines are safe and effective etc yet you think they are truthful like most Finns reportedly - almost 70% if memory serves. Don’t expect others to be so brainwashed. Corporate Jew owned media is not a credible source.
Thank you for your reply.
For the sake of clarity, I want to emphasize that my critique focuses entirely on the structure and reasoning of the arguments being presented. This is a critique of ideas, not of the individual. Identifying logical fallacies like a red herring or ad hominem is simply a way of clarifying why a particular point doesn't hold up to scrutiny. My intent is to keep the conversation grounded in verifiable evidence, not to question anyone's integrity or intelligence.
I believe I have already shown above that every link you posted above ultimately traces back to Kremlin-linked or other state-controlled outlets. Simply dismissing that and restating the claim more forcefully does not change the sourcing. Anyone who reads carefully and checks the references can see where the trail leads.
By the same logic, one could (and should) say the same about Russian outlets: they will not truthfully report their own setbacks, only inflated victories. That’s exactly why critical media literacy means checking who owns and controls a source, not just whether it says what we want to believe.
This feels to me like a handfull of fallacies:
First, you're using relativism by claiming that "what people consider credible" is just a matter of personal opinion. This framing creates a false equivalence, suggesting that all sources are equally biased and can't be judged on their merits, which completely sidesteps the fact that I've already shown your links trace back to Kremlin outlets.
Then a red herring with 9/11 and Covid. These aren’t completely irrelevant, but they are distractions: instead of dealing with the specific NATO claim, you jump to big, contentious issues to muddy the waters. A bit of a classic derail tactic to shift the ground of the discussion so we’re no longer focused on the concrete data point at hand.
On top of that, a straw man: you imply I think MSM is 100% truthful, which I have never said. Finally, an ad hominem aimed at me as a Finn (“70% believe… don’t be brainwashed”) instead of addressing the actual sourcing problem
And finally, the “Corporate Jew owned media is not a credible source”
In exposing why your links don’t hold up, I never cited so-called “corporate Jew owned media.” What I showed is that Kremlin-backed disinformation outlets are not credible sources..
I really can’t be bothered to go through your posting history, I have better things to do but the vast majority is as I have described, as you well know…..have you read the Protocols, if not I suggest you do? You might as well know who you are shilling for…
This discussion is about the handful of links you posted, which I've shown to be connected to Kremlin-affiliated sources. Why would you need to go through my posting history?
But if you are busy or do not want to discuss it's fine.
I believe that using logical fallacies and engaging in dishonest, rude, or manipulative discussion is wrong. It's an unhealthy way to communicate, and it corrupts the search for truth.
This intellectual dishonesty is also a form of self-deception, stemming from a fundamental unwillingness (sloth) to do the hard, psychological work of self-correction. Instead of embracing the mind's capacity for growth—its ability to adapt and change in light of new information—an individual takes the path of least resistance. Using logical fallacies becomes a tool to avoid the mental discomfort of "killing" cherished, pre-conceived ideas. In this sense, it's not just a lie told to others, but an act of intellectual and spiritual laziness, a refusal to grow by being honest with oneself.
From a spiritual and ethical perspective, this kind of intellectual dishonesty is incompatible with the principles of integrity and truth central to both the Torah and the teachings of Christ. The use of fallacies to deceive or mislead others directly violates the prohibitions against lying and false testimony, effectively choosing self-deception over a genuine and humble search for truth. By engaging in such behavior, one not only corrupts the discourse but also sets a negative example, teaching others for instance that it is acceptable to prioritize pride over honesty.
Sure Buddy, you would be the last person I would take spiritual advice from. Based on your posting history you are the main source of discord here, now I will admit I have played my part by engaging with you. It’s all psycho-babble, the usual suspects are behind psychology too.
I might take IT advice from you though…
Buffoon Boris again trashes idea of peace between Ukraine & Russia, compares Putin to Hitler
np.
oh, nm.
All? Isn't there a wise saying about letting your all be all and none be none and whatever more isn't very precise communication?
Are you referring to everything that I say is "psycho-babble", whatever that means? Logical fallacies? Mere psycho-babble?
Please remember we are all friends here
Are you Borzzikman or do you have some connection to him, please?
Because based on a quick search it appears that the above incredible claim is only made on these two locations:-
- YouTube channel
- ThePrisoner Brighteon channel
On the whole Internet.
(The claim that a NATO facility was hit)
You are still using Google I see, it really isn’t very good. You only searched 40% of the internet it seems 
Seems like those pesky Russians have a much better search engine which doesn’t limit one’s results with Yandex……
Ok, I was wrong, sorry. Apparently someone/thing called UKACTION, Biological Medicine and THE RESISTANCE 2.0 are also spreading his videos.
Still... There appears to be no other credible source for this claim, as usual.
No problem Cybe 