For scared people: many things you may believe about the Ukraine war are EASILY SHOWN to be false or unsupported - example list of claims I fact check because nobody else seems to
I do my fact checking blog posts because I don't know of any other sources that do the same thing, especially not in clear ways understandable to scared and panicking people.
If any of you have any ideas of how to get governments or fact checking sites interested in fact checking these lies do say. My interest is as a voluntary fact checker, seeing the devastating effects these lies have had on the scared people we help - and how quickly they are able to get over their fears as a result of the fact checks.
I don't know of a single fact checking site to fact check Putin's many lies. Do any of you? I tried these with BBC Verify but they have made no response to any of these fact check requests.
I will do this as a screenshot for sharing and then repeat as text for those who use screen readers to read the page or who are using auto translate to read this in another language.
For the contents list, click on horizontal dashes to left of this page - then you can jump to any fact check of interest
False and unsupported claims about Ukraine war many scared people believe - all easy to disprove
BBC unsupported claim in interview:
(UNSUPPORTED) decision to invade Ukraine was an emotional step
— based on access to top secret information, Royal United Service Institute (RUSI) and others say it was planned long in advance and the exercises in March 2021 were to test how the West would respond to preparations for an invasion(UNSUPPORTED) Putin may emotionally decide to use nukes
— the Pentagon say over and over that they see no preparations to use nukes
Russian disinformation
(FALSE) the Ukraine war is (already) global
— US is just part of a coalition of over 40 countries supplying UkraineFALSE) American soldiers are needed to fire ATACMS
— e.g. Singapore doesn’t need US soldiers to fire ATACMS(FALSE) British soldiers are needed to fire Stormshadows.
— e.g. India doesn’t need French or UK soldiers to fire Scalp EG(FALSE) the Oreshnik is unstoppable
— could be stopped by Aegis Ashire, THAAD, enhanced Patriot(FALSE) His attacks on Ukraine are retaliation for ATACMS and Stormshadow
— the ATACMS and Stormshadow are needed precisely to STOP Putins rapidly increasing bomb strikes on Ukraine-
False claims in Western media:
(FALSE) Ukraine wants to develop nukes if it can’t join NATO
- Zelensky says “We do NOT do nukes” and “Please don’t spread this message”(FALSE) Ukraine retaliates against Russian civilians
— Ukraine hits only military targets to protect Ukrainian civilians
False claim by the USA:
(FALSE) Ukraine must lower recruitment age for more soldiers
— Zelensky says their shortage is equipment. They launched the Reserv+ app and have over 2.7 million potential soldiers aged 25+ that they could recruit if they had the equipment
Central point you need to know:
”He (Putin) is certainly NOT going to attack a NATO country”
— General Petraeus former 4 star US general, led operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, frequently in Ukraine during the war and former head of the CIA
There is
🔹 NO RISK OF A WORLD WAR
🔹 NO RISK OF A NUCLEAR WAR
🔹 IT IS SAFE FOR ITS ALLIES TO HELP UKRAINE.
My fact checks for some of those claims:
Putin’s invasion of Ukraine was NOT an emotional decision - RUSI and other sources of highest reliability say it was decided long in advance
We can also go to the RUSI assessment itself to find more details. This is written by authors with access to secret material in the possession of the Ukrainian military which they couldn’t release for operational security reasons
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Russia’s military exercises in spring 2021
We now know that Putin and his spies had ALREADY decided to invade Ukraine
Objectives were:
— pressure the West to encourage Kyiv to make more concessions
— preposition military assets for the invasion in 2022
— assess reactions of Ukraine’s international partners to invasion preparationsBased on RUSI analysis [Royal United Service Institute]
Photograph from: Russia’s Zapad-21: Lessons Learned
Summarizes part of (Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022 : page 7)
The 2021 military scenario was a defensive one, and even the soldiers didn’t know the real intention.
See my:
BLOG: Putin's invasion of Ukraine was NOT an emotional decision
— likely nearly a year to plan
— carefully calculated based on rosy-tinted information from spies
— a risk averse man who needs 100% certainty
[fact checks the claim that the decision to invade Ukraine was an emotional decision or that Putin might decide to use nukes based on an emotion]
Indeed he is very risk averse, the ISW tweeted:
“Putin is a very risk averse individual. He is extremely calculated, and he oftentimes really prefers not to make urgent, rash political decisions that would specifically impact the health of his regime,” said ISW’s Russia deputy team lead @ KatStepanenko
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Putin is "A VERY RISK AVERSE INDIVIDUAL" (ISW).
So why did he invade Ukraine? He thought it was ZERO RISK.
Exercises in March 2021 were part of the preparations for invasion.
He planned to
- take Hostomel airport on day 1.
- land tanks and take over Kyiv government next day.
- take over Ukraine in 10 days.
Then this happened.
Debris from unexpectedly destroyed Russian helicopters
Putin was so sure the risk was zero he had no plan B.
Putin was so sure of this plan devised by spied he kept it secret even from most of his generals (Gerasimov knew).
“no evidence in the Russian planning that anyone had asked what would occur if any of its key assumptions were wrong.” — RUSI
There is NO WAY Putin could think using nukes is ZERO RISK no matter what his spies say.
RUSI quote from (Preliminary Lessons in Conventional Warfighting from Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine: February–July 2022 : page 12)
See my:
Pentagon says they see no sign of Putin preparing to use nukes and the war is NOT global it is a local war in Ukraine with 50 countries supplying Ukraine
The Pentagon continue to say they see no signs of Russia preparing to use nukes and no need to change their own alert level.
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
Is the Pentagon concerned about nukes or changed alert level?
A. We see NO signs of Putin preparing to use nukes and have NOT CHANGED OUR ALERT LEVEL.
Has world war III began?
No. This is just the US as one of 50 or so countries supporting Ukraine’s defence capabilities.
[my short summary for autistic or panicking readers]
See my:
US and UK soldiers do NOT have to target the missiles they supply
The US and UK supply the missiles not NATO. The US also exports ATACMS to many other countries such as Singapore and the US does NOT fire the missiles.
As for targets, Ukraine has its own "People's satellite" and many of the targets can be found even using Google Maps, ISW has a list of over 200 with their exact coordinates and an interactive map you can use to find each one in Google Maps.
This graphic helps explain how nonsensical Putin’s request is:
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
Putin's request to Biden to prohibit Ukraine from using its weapons to hit any targets outside Ukraine was always VERY BIZARRE
Singapore would NEVER buy ATACMS if it could only use them to hit targets in Singapore.
See my:
[fact checks Putin’s false claim that US and UK soldiers have to target the missiles they supply]
The Oreshnik can easily be stopped by an upgraded Patriot, THAAD or Aegis ashore
This map shows Aegis ashore which covers Ukraine, and could shoot down the Oleshnik but Ukraine’s allies are more likely to look for some way to boost Ukraine’s own capabilities with enhanced Patriot or Thaad because of European sensitivities about shooting down missiles targeted at Ukraine.
See my:
in:
Russia is already dropping as many bombs, missiles, cruise missiles and drones on Ukraine as it can - the ATACMS permission will REDUCE these not increase the risk to Ukraine
BLOG: Russia already dropped as many bombs a day as it could on Ukraine BEFORE Biden's permission
— ATACMS help STOP this
— and Ukraine is not using them to harm Russian civilians
— nothing to retaliate to
[fact checks claim that his attacks on Ukraine are an escalation or retaliation in response to the ATACMS permissions]
Zelensky has plenty of soldiers, including over 2.7 million registered on the Defens+ app for conscription if needed, he needs equipment not soldiers
TEXT ON GRAPHIC
At least 2.7 million Ukrainians signed up to fight for their country with the Reserv+ app
Zelensky says Ukraine needs equipment not soldiersUkraine has ~2% of its 37 million people fighting.
It could increase this 4-fold and be far less than WW2 levels of ~12% fighting.
Modern wars need far fewer soldiers than earlier wars
- so long as they have well trained soldiers with high tech modern equipment.Ukraine does NOT need to reduce its conscription age to 18+
See my:
[fact checks claim that Ukraine has a shortage of soldiers]
Ukraine is NOT attacking civilians in Russia - only hitting military targets to defend itself
Text on graphic: This photograph featured by the New York Times is VERY MISLEADING and RUSSIAN PROPAGANDA.
This shows the aftermath of a Russian glide bomb that one of its bombers accidentally dropped on a Russian apartment block in Belgorod.
Ukraine does NOT target Russian civilians - it wants permission to hit legitimate defensive targets in Russia. Such as the artillery firing shells at Vovschank from just over the border 5 kilometers away .
Tweet shown in screenshot: Jimmy Rushton (@JimmySecUK) on X
Open source analysis: Oliver Alexander (@OAlexanderDK) on X
See my:
[fact checks claim that Ukraine retaliates by targeting Russian civilians]
Zelensky tells the world “we do NOT DO NUKES” and asks Western media not to spread the false message
This is the interview that was misunderstood by many in the press.
And that is why we choose NATO and not nuclear weapons
— Zelensky [rewritten slightly for fluency]
Here is when he asked the Western media not to spread the false message
But we don't do nuclear weapons. Please don't spread these messages.
— Zelensky [rewritten slightly for fluency]
Yet it still is spread and many scared people believe this misinformation.
See my:
[fact checks claim that Ukraine wants to develop nukes if it can’t join NATO]
Factchecking these lies and misleading claims doesn’t seem to be a priority yet for Western fact checkers
If you go to FacCheck . org all they have for Putin for 2024 is Trump’s false claim that he met Putin.
https://www.factcheck.org/person/vladimir-putin/
I’ve asked BBC Verify to fact check them and got no response.
It just doesn't seem to be a priority.
Why aren’t Western fact-checkers checking these claims, anyone know?
This is a frequently asked question in our group. Our members often ask us - where are the other fact checkers saying what you say?
They don’t challenge our fact checks. Nobody has found any mistakes in them.
They just want the assurance of seeing them from other fact checkers.
These have to count as amongst the most common questions these fact checkers are asked about but they are not fact checking them.
Why not? I wish I knew.
Where are the other people fact-checking fake doomsdays, even very obvious fakes? They either don't exist or are inactive, or hardly debunk anything or aren't reliable.
Why is nobody else fact checking these things?
I wish I knew. Especially Putin's lies.
Why isn't there a dedicated body of Western fact checkers fact checking his lies?
Fact checkers for Russian disinformation would benefit the West as well as help scared people
It would have helped the West a lot with their support for the Ukraine war to have a BBC Verify or FactCheck . org or anyone fact checking his many lies.
So it is not like they have any political motive for this. If anything their political motive should be in favour of fact checking his lies.
I don’t mean there is some hidden reason for it, some secret reason they want his lies to be believed.
My own guess for what it is worth is that it is likely just inertia, stuck in old ways of doing things, bureaucracy and lack of awareness of the issue.
They are just not used to fact checking Russian propaganda. There is no group set up to do it. There seems to be nobody saying “this is my job”.
One bright spot - Sean Bell on Sky News telling kids “we are NOT on the verge of World War 3” and “we do not risk a nuclear conflagration”
I’m not talking here about military experts, or the likes of RUSI or ISW or the Imperial War Museum. I’m talking about sources ordinary folk will encounter.
I know of one bright spot in the Ukraine war in mainstream media, Sean Bell at Sky News UK (which is reasonably reliable unlike Sky News Australia).
He says really clearly to young kids that we are NOT on the verge of World War 3 and we are NOT about to have a nuclear confrontation. My debunk goes through in detail unpacking why Sean Bell could say that with such confidence, also backed up by what Admiral Radakin said - and what Ronald Reagen said too which has been affirmed over and over since then not a promise but a self evident truth that a nuclear war can't be won and must never be fought.
Putin is only bluffing. His aim is to try to handicap Ukraine by bluffing. Any NATO country even tiny Estonia could have won against Russia in a few days as soon as the supplies got to them. The only reason Ukraine can't do that is because of Putin's bluffs. Which is precisely the ONLY reason he does the bluffs.
This is also why Ukraine wants to join NATO when the war is over. Because that is the only way it can be safe from Putin in the future.
General Patreus: He [Putin] is certainly not going to attack a NATO country
TEXT ON GRAPHIC:
General Petraeus as four star general in US army - now retired.
. GEN Petraeus Aug 2011 - Wikimedia Commons
General Petraeus says, first that Putin is bluffing:
Yes, Putin is bluffing.
His nukes threat is also a bluff - his biggest ally and partner China / president Xi said “don’t even think about that” and so did Prime Minister Modi of India, an important customer for crude oil etc
On what Putin can do by way of retaliation (nothing essentially)
Putin can’t do anything more conventionally than he is doing already
This is NOT a NATO decision it’s unilateral decisions by the US, UK and France and we do things all the time that are not to do with NATO
Putin will NOT attack NATO. His hands are more than full with Ukraine. He pulled forces out of Eastern Russia, Africa, and Syria to fight in Ukraine.
Putin doesn’t want to take on another fight
On prospects for peace - that the US needs to do everything it can to enable Ukraine to accumulate more battlefield successes to change the dynamics so that genuine peace negotiations can start.
This improves the prospect for peace
Right now the dynamics of the war are not going to encourage Putin to negotiate and Ukraine are not keen to negotiate either
The US needs to do everything it possibly can to help Ukraine to accumulate battlefield successes, so that the dynamics change sufficiently for meaningful negotiations
This is a summary of what General Petraeus said in bullet points.
He was director of the CIA and led American and international forces in Afghanistan and Iraq.
On NATO he says in full:
He is certainly not going to attack a NATO country and force NATO to invoke the article 5, an attack on one is an attack on all, clause. He doesn't want a fight with NATO.
. Ukrainecast - Could the West cross Putin's new red line? - BBC Sounds
Full transcript:
Conclusion - no risk of world war or nuclear war and safe for its allies to help Ukaine by giving it what it needs to defend itself
So I hope this helps put your fears to rest.
There is
🔹 NO RISK OF A WORLD WAR
🔹 NO RISK OF A NUCLEAR WAR
🔹 IT IS SAFE FOR ITS ALLIES TO HELP UKRAINE.
CONTACT ME VIA PM OR ON FACEBOOK OR EMAIL
If you need to talk to me about something it is often far better to do so via private / direct messaging because Quora often fails to notify me of comment replies.
You can Direct Message my profile (then More >> messages). Or better, email me at support@robertinventor.com
Or best of all Direct Message me on Facebook if you are okay joining Facebook. My Facebook profile is here:. Robert Walker I usually get Facebook messages much faster than on the other platforms as I spend most of my day there.
FOR MORE HELP
To find a debunk see: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date See also my Short debunks
Scared and want a story debunked? Post to our Facebook group. Please look over the group rules before posting or commenting as they help the group to run smoothly
Facebook group Doomsday Debunked
Also do join our facebook group if you can help with fact checking or to help scared people who are panicking.
SEARCH LIST OF DEBUNKS
You can search by title and there’s also an option to search the content of the blog using a google search.
CLICK HERE TO SEARCH: List of articles in my Debunking Doomsday blog to date
NEW SHORT DEBUNKS
I do many more fact checks and debunks on our facebook group than I could ever write up as blog posts. They are shorter and less polished but there is a good chance you may find a short debunk for some recent concern.
See Latest short debunks for new short debunks
I also do tweets about them. I also tweet the debunks and short debunks to my Blue Sky page here:
Then on the Doomsday Debunked wiki, see my Short Debunks page which is a single page of all the earlier short debunks in one page.
I do the short debunks more often but they are less polished - they are copies of my longer replies to scared people in the Facebook group.