Differing View on the Ukraine/Russia Conflict

[mudflap]

https://popularresistance.org/ukraine-i ... re-silent/

care to recant?

Surprise Surprise, but the author has RT next to her name. That means she is paid by the Russian government. Can you find any front line videos with reporters that aren't connected to RT?

Russia has a massive media complex.

I see.

So....:



and they stole the election from Hillary - WE KNOW! you better let twitter know so they can SAVE FREEDOM OF SPEECH by CENSORING SPEECH... meanwhile...



And as requested: I found dozens of articles detailing the shelling of the Donbass region by Ukraine - without RT. You could find them too - took me just a few seconds on a non-censored search engine - here's a few:

- https://www.wardiary.net/post/ukrainian ... 19-donbass
- https://www.donbass-insider.com/2019/12 ... -ministry/
- https://tass.com/politics/1072303
- https://www.rferl.org/a/ukrainian-soldi ... 52642.html (oooo! look! it's from a source you upheld last week as legitimate)
- https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29912055 (Gaa! quick! call the queen! tell her the Russians are coming!)
- https://www.huffpost.com/entry/ukraine- ... _b_6585116 (oooo! Huffpost? I didn't know they were Russian trolls....)
- https://news.yahoo.com/dozens-die-ukrai ... 07227.html (Yahoo? Is that Russian for "DisInfo"?)
- https://www.dw.com/en/about-dw/s-30688 (Germany? what the????)
- https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/odr/do ... -shelling/ (open democracy? it's gotta be lies....)
- https://www.bellingcat.com/news/uk-and- ... time-bomb/
- https://www.stalkerzone.org/ukraines-ma ... -reaction/
- https://www.stalkerzone.org/residents-i ... ling-them/
- https://southfront.org/fighting-increas ... ss-region/

I'm sure you'll recant now....

I asked for FRONT-LINE VIDEOS, that means I'd like interviews with separatists on the front lines.
Most of these are simply rehashes of he said, she said, they said, whatever. The only one with video was the first link, which just showed overhead silent footage of bombs dropping, which could have been anywhere. And it most likely was false-flag attacks to be able to accuse Ukraine of something.

Keep in mind that Russia has a MMC - massive media complex.

The second linked article has no author. It's off a blog that says this about themselves:
"This website was created by people working as journalists and translators since years. After working for a news agency, we thought it was necessary to create a new platform, where authors from different agencies, blogs, and information websites can collaborate together to spread information."

Where have I heard that before? This is Russian disinfo standard operating procedure.

Third link is from Tass. Tass is a Russian state-owned news agency. More Russian propaganda.

Forth link - story which says this: "Rochelli and Mironov were working in the Donetsk region when they were hit by mortar shelling by the Ukrainian military just weeks after fighting broke out between Ukrainian forces and Russia-backed separatist formations in parts of eastern Ukraine."
Again, this is just a report from who knows. And it was weeks after the outbreak of violence. You'd expect there to be some back and forth in that first month. Who's been provoking for the last 8 years?

Fifth link - Again a story from the very early breakout of violence in 2014, that said a shell had hit a school near the airport. Doesn't say who shot it. "The shell landed close to Donetsk airport at a school..." ""The area around Donetsk airport has seen some of the worst violence in the weeks since the ceasefire was declared. Ukrainian forces have been holding out at the airport despite a siege by the separatists."

Sixth link - "These are more casualties to a war that is quickly escalating. After yesterday's attack, each side blamed the other for the atrocities." The author is not putting the blame on the Ukrainian side. There is testimony that the Separatists/Russians were doing the shelling.

Seventh link - from Aug 2014, There's no proof presented that it is Ukrainian military killing civilians. ""The Ukrainian army or whoever they are – they’re bombing us again. I've lived in the apartment building my entire life and now they want to take everything I have. There is nothing left to lose here in this city," ..."The Ukrainian government denies that its forces are targeting civilian areas. Another nine people, pro-Ukrainian volunteer fighters supporting Kiev's forces, were killed overnight in separate clashes near Donetsk, Ukrainian officials said. The government in Kiev and its allies have accused Moscow of orchestrating the separatist rebellion and equipping the rebels with tanks, missiles and other heavy weaponry. Moscow denies this and accuses Kiev of waging a war against its own people and shelling civilians."

Eighth link - didn't work - no article there but looked like the about page

Ninth link - "The war in Ukraine’s Donbas is now in its fourth year. This is mostly thanks to Russian military and financial support for separatist forces, and because of the ineffectual policies of the Ukrainian government, which has been unable to come up with a strategy to free the country from an external aggressor and end the crisis." "...“Life’s pretty bad here. When there’s shooting, we hide in the cellar. There was a sniper firing around here yesterday." "...Popasna is a town in the Luhansk region and an administrative centre of its eponymous administrative district. At the moment, the area is under Ukrainian control, but despite the Minsk Agreements, shelling can be heard in the town daily. “They’re firing at us every day,” a local woman tells me, “but nobody talks about it.
The Ukrainian soldiers on the front lines testify that the separatists are initiating the shelling every day.

Tenth link - blogger that doesn't look like he's blaming Ukraine for anything

Eleventh link - Another mysterious website that lists nothing about the author(s) on their about page. The article's author's name is Ollie Richardson. If you can find any info on this person, I'll say kudos!

Twelve - same website as #11. Heck the address says "stalkerzone.org" I'm sure they're trustworthy.

#13 - "2 DPR soldiers have been killed and 8 taken captive as result of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ shelling near the village of Shirokino in the Donbass region, TASS reported on June 28"
A reference to Tass Russian government propaganda.

WOW.

WOW.

WOW.

I was 100% correct the first time:

[harakim]

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I've heard this argument before. It didn't exactly work all the time when the USA was fighting technologically inferior Communist nations (the smaller ones) or Islamic countries. The USA is ahead technologically- no doubt about it - but tech is expensive to produce, not always reliable in the field and there are umpteen other problems.

It is one thing to conquer a place, another to occupy it. The USA has been more successful with imperialism when it installled proxy/satellite/puppet governments. It has been less successful with direct conquest and occupation of larger countries.

As for taking over Asia, the USA couldn't even take over Afghanistan. Not unless it intended to wipe out the entire population. Same with Russia. The USA could take major cities, but it would never fully control the vast countryside without full genocide, and many people would resent them, especially after American troops misbehaved themselves with local women etc. (America's issues with this are real - it has caused major issues in Japan for example)

The only continent I could see the USA taking and occupying successfully would be Australia, and even there would be issues.

Remember, even with the big European empires, there was a huge gap between conquerer and conquered in most cases than exists today. When Britain took much of Africa, Canada, Australia and NZ, it was an industrial power fighting tribes that were still in the Stone Age or at Iron Age level (in Africa)... and they still had problems. It did take parts of Asia, but often using proxy rulers - local rajahs, sheikhs, emirs etc. The UK nearly took Argentina at one stage, but it was fought back by a citizenry which was far more up to its own level of technology than Stone Age tribes.

The United States is not able to occupy a territory indefinitely without a huge financial commitment. No one can do that nor has anyone done that without a complete disregard for the population. You either have to have buy in (which is where puppets come in handy) or you have to deal harshly with anyone steps out of line. The US is not willing to do that. The United States could disable the regular army of any country or assassinate anyone in the world. If their objective is solely to kill, then there isn't a lot anyone can do about it. Whether the US foreign policy is manipulative or honest, I can't say for sure, but I can say that there is no near peer.

The first mistake the Americans made with Afghanistan's administration was trying to turn it into a republic, the second a centralised state and the third to install the first people they found willing to exchange their services for money.

A better way to run it would have been to have various areas run by local chiefs who would meet in council every so often, with a figurehead monarch. The fake democracy, rigged elections and corrupt politicians were not a good look. Nor was having a big military occupation.

I agree with your first and second mistake, which are the same. Your second paragraph is pretty much how it operates today sans the centralized monarch.

[gruden2.0]

This guy has posted some interesting info from useful resources.

[darknesstolight]

Here is a link to a differing view on what is going on in Ukraine/Russia titled They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War .

https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022 ... t.html?m=1

The guy is just repeating the Russian narrative. He says that the Ukrainian government has been shelling it's own people in Eastern Ukraine, but that is not true and there's no proof. The many testimonies out there are that the Russian "separatists" have been shooting at the Ukrainians every day. Just watch all the videos I posted of reporters on the front lines.
This guy also claims that the government in Ukraine are Western puppets, but I just did a post about how un-western these guys are acting.

Sarah,

Western countries like Canada? Or France? Or New Zealand? Or even the USA?

You seriously think you are living in a country whose government is true to Western principles?

You are being led along. Nobody likes to think that but in this case it is true.

The mainstream media is getting millions of dollars from the government with strings attached. All of them. Foxnews, CNN, NPR, you pick a mainstream news agency and it is in a significant way in cahoots with the government.

George Soros supports a war against Russia. Hillary Clinton is preaching the mainstream narrative. She is a criminal, a verified liar, thief, and has conspired against the US and violated all sorts of laws. If this woman is telling you something is good you better think twice, thrice even.

...

[harakim]

Why not? As Ajax said (and you ignored) - why is it ok for the US to place limits on other countries' weapons, but wrong for Russia to do the same?

We would not stand for Mexico to host or obtain Russian nukes would we?

Why should it be different the other way round?

If that's the reality for both nations, then preach what it should be, rather than saying one wrong makes the other justified. Either one demanding things and threatening aren't justified. They probably have suitcase nukes already within our borders. And they probably aren't making any showy deals with Mexico so they can claim moral authority.

Russia is incapable of sneaking suitcase nukes into the United States.


If you want to put this into perspective, imagine society collapses and you live in a Suburban neighborhood. Imagine there is a house of Navy Seals that trains every day outside and has lockers full of weapons. They randomly lash out at houses where the people are acting like they don't like. And they've always had it in for you. How would you feel?

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I think this is all some kind of performance, but it's a believable one if it is. The United States is really that much of a threat to the entire world.

I don't agree with your assessment. Russia and China are definitely peer adversaries, and have had the goal of building up their militaries to defeat us for decades. It's very likely they have lied about the true number of everything in their arsenal. Please read the thread I've started about the book, "New Lies for Old," to understand their long-term strategy. Also, Heritage foundation does an assessment our our military every year: https://www.heritage.org/military They've labeled much of our military force as "marginal" and "weak." Scroll down the Executive Summary to see the charts. Or dive in deeper with their essays.

I usually agree with your posts, but I'm not surprised you have that opinion given the demoralization and outright lies that run in the media and educational circles. I don't disagree that Russia and China are trying to build up their militaries to be able to defeat us. They haven't been able to. The Gulf War was against Iraq and we defeated them in under a week. They had more practice than any other country because they had been at war for 8 years with Iran, a real war. So they had lots of practice, they had modern US arms, and they had the 5th most powerful army in the world. And then we decided we needed to do something about them.

But don't take my word for it!

"In 1991, Chinese military officers watched as the United States dismantled the Iraqi Army, a force with more battle experience and somewhat greater technical sophistication than the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The Americans won with casualties that were trivial by historical standards." - National Interest

Until the Gulf War, people knew the US was powerful but that was shell shock for every country in the world.

You can read about it online. I can even find you a book recommendation if you want. In 1991, we could probably have taken on the entire world and won. They have been working feverishly ever since and yet, who can match our Navy? Who can match our air force? Who can match our space force? Who even has a space force? How many countries can move any of their dozen and a half extremely well-defended air force bases (with 5000+ personnel!) anywhere in the world within 2 weeks? How many countries can send a bevy of bombers undetected all the way around the world, hit a target and fly back? How many countries can have boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 48 hours? The answer is one country and it's the US.

Russia has an upper crust of very well trained military as do other countries. However, there are few countries who have even 10% of their troops equipped and trained as well as our worst trained troops. We have the best technology, we have the best Special Forces... Do you know which air service is the best in the world? The US Air force. Who is the second best? The US Navy. I don't really know how to emphasize the advantages we have over every other country. I hate to break it, but Russia is not a near peer in any way except they also have nuclear weapons.

Attacking China in its homeland would give us a run for our money for the first time in history. I think the powers that be may be waiting for them to become a near peer so we can destroy each other, but I also think they could just have sabotaged our electric equipment and we'd be off the world stage at their earliest convenience. Hopefully not, but we have been warned:

The manner of their oaths and combinations are had among all people (Ether 8:20).

[darknesstolight]

Here is something else to think about

https://rumble.com/vwdwwj-history-cnns- ... f-war.html

...

[darknesstolight]

Been Done Before

https://rumble.com/vwdwwj-history-cnns- ... f-war.html

...

[mudflap]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

[Sarah]

Here is a link to a differing view on what is going on in Ukraine/Russia titled They're Trying To Get You To Support Another Phony War .

https://puremormonism.blogspot.com/2022 ... t.html?m=1

The guy is just repeating the Russian narrative. He says that the Ukrainian government has been shelling it's own people in Eastern Ukraine, but that is not true and there's no proof. The many testimonies out there are that the Russian "separatists" have been shooting at the Ukrainians every day. Just watch all the videos I posted of reporters on the front lines.
This guy also claims that the government in Ukraine are Western puppets, but I just did a post about how un-western these guys are acting.

Sarah,

Western countries like Canada? Or France? Or New Zealand? Or even the USA?

You seriously think you are living in a country whose government is true to Western principles?

You are being led along. Nobody likes to think that but in this case it is true.

The mainstream media is getting millions of dollars from the government with strings attached. All of them. Foxnews, CNN, NPR, you pick a mainstream news agency and it is in a significant way in cahoots with the government.

George Soros supports a war against Russia. Hillary Clinton is preaching the mainstream narrative. She is a criminal, a verified liar, thief, and has conspired against the US and violated all sorts of laws. If this woman is telling you something is good you better think twice, thrice even.

...

Never did I say that I believed Western countries were holding up to their principles. I simply believe that the elites in our government, and our mainstream media, have been infiltrated and influenced by the same conspiracy that Putin is a part of. The Westerners are one side of the drama of opposition, Putin and the "nationalists" fighting "imperialism" are part of the other. The elites are working together, or at the very least they are knowingly or unknowingly being manipulated by the Russian side, through money or lies or both.

The Russians want our Western media to be corrupt, compromised and look unreliable. That is how they have always planned on taking down the US, from within, by creating distrust in our government, media and institutions. So when you see Western corruption, it's not because they have a plan for a Western styled NWO. It's because they have been bought and paid for by agents of the Kremlin and other compromised individuals.

[Sarah]

If that's the reality for both nations, then preach what it should be, rather than saying one wrong makes the other justified. Either one demanding things and threatening aren't justified. They probably have suitcase nukes already within our borders. And they probably aren't making any showy deals with Mexico so they can claim moral authority.

Russia is incapable of sneaking suitcase nukes into the United States.


If you want to put this into perspective, imagine society collapses and you live in a Suburban neighborhood. Imagine there is a house of Navy Seals that trains every day outside and has lockers full of weapons. They randomly lash out at houses where the people are acting like they don't like. And they've always had it in for you. How would you feel?

The United States doesn't have any "near peer" adversaries. We are so much more powerful that we could easily take over Russia or any other country in the world (forgetting about nuclear weapons.) In fact, we could probably take over all of Europe or all of Asia. We are that much more powerful. It is reasonable for other countries to be afraid of the United States, especially when we start encircling them.

I think this is all some kind of performance, but it's a believable one if it is. The United States is really that much of a threat to the entire world.

I don't agree with your assessment. Russia and China are definitely peer adversaries, and have had the goal of building up their militaries to defeat us for decades. It's very likely they have lied about the true number of everything in their arsenal. Please read the thread I've started about the book, "New Lies for Old," to understand their long-term strategy. Also, Heritage foundation does an assessment our our military every year: https://www.heritage.org/military They've labeled much of our military force as "marginal" and "weak." Scroll down the Executive Summary to see the charts. Or dive in deeper with their essays.

I usually agree with your posts, but I'm not surprised you have that opinion given the demoralization and outright lies that run in the media and educational circles. I don't disagree that Russia and China are trying to build up their militaries to be able to defeat us. They haven't been able to. The Gulf War was against Iraq and we defeated them in under a week. They had more practice than any other country because they had been at war for 8 years with Iran, a real war. So they had lots of practice, they had modern US arms, and they had the 5th most powerful army in the world. And then we decided we needed to do something about them.

But don't take my word for it!

"In 1991, Chinese military officers watched as the United States dismantled the Iraqi Army, a force with more battle experience and somewhat greater technical sophistication than the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). The Americans won with casualties that were trivial by historical standards." - National Interest

Until the Gulf War, people knew the US was powerful but that was shell shock for every country in the world.

You can read about it online. I can even find you a book recommendation if you want. In 1991, we could probably have taken on the entire world and won. They have been working feverishly ever since and yet, who can match our Navy? Who can match our air force? Who can match our space force? Who even has a space force? How many countries can move any of their dozen and a half extremely well-defended air force bases (with 5000+ personnel!) anywhere in the world within 2 weeks? How many countries can send a bevy of bombers undetected all the way around the world, hit a target and fly back? How many countries can have boots on the ground anywhere in the world within 48 hours? The answer is one country and it's the US.

Russia has an upper crust of very well trained military as do other countries. However, there are few countries who have even 10% of their troops equipped and trained as well as our worst trained troops. We have the best technology, we have the best Special Forces... Do you know which air service is the best in the world? The US Air force. Who is the second best? The US Navy. I don't really know how to emphasize the advantages we have over every other country. I hate to break it, but Russia is not a near peer in any way except they also have nuclear weapons.

Attacking China in its homeland would give us a run for our money for the first time in history. I think the powers that be may be waiting for them to become a near peer so we can destroy each other, but I also think they could just have sabotaged our electric equipment and we'd be off the world stage at their earliest convenience. Hopefully not, but we have been warned:

The manner of their oaths and combinations are had among all people (Ether 8:20).

You don't think that with Russian and Chinese forces combined, they could destroy us? What about if Iran and North Korea (their friends) were also fighting us at the same time as both of them?

Did you read the heritage report? For years now our military has not been ranked high enough to engage in more than one major conflict. We are headed for that - engaging in more than one area of the world, which Russia helping in the Middle East, and China in the Pacific.

[gruden2.0]

Here's a view: both sides are wrong:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jrQ10Yj3nOFv

The Book of Mormon would tend to agree.

[TheDuke]

Viet Nam beat us, Korea tied us (both with Chinese help). We don't have the will to fight. Afganistan and Taliban beat us. China and Russia don't play fair.

[Sarah]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

The majority of the Ukraine population does not favor Russia nor it's influence in their politics, as the Russians have been meddling in their country (they really control it) since the beginning. Despite electing Yanukovych, he turned out to be a Putin puppet. Supposedly Poroshenko was pro-Western, but here's what I wrote about him in another post:

"Poroshenko - same deal. He made all these promises to fix Eastern Ukraine, but never did anything. (The goal was to keep Ukraine in a weakened state so that they could be taken over.) He also stated early on that he did not support joining NATO. Later he said they should, but they needed to first rid the country of corruption to meet NATO requirements. You'd think if he was a US puppet, joining NATO would be high up on the agenda. He stated that he did not want Ukraine becoming a nuclear power. He banned 41 international journalists from entering the country. And there's this: "On 20 December 2021, Poroshenko was accused of state treason, aiding terrorist organizations and financing terrorism due to allegedly organizing the purchase of coal from separatist-controlled areas of Ukraine together with pro-Russian politician Viktor Medvedchuk.[173]"

You say their was a plan to put a base and nukes in Ukraine, but obviously Obama went the other route. I thought the 2014 coup was Obama orchestrated? If Obama really wanted Ukraine to be on the West's side, why didn't he equip Ukraine with what it needed to deter Russia?

[Sarah]

Here's a view: both sides are wrong:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/jrQ10Yj3nOFv

The Book of Mormon would tend to agree.

Kind of ironic that they are making fun of Zelenski for his acting past, but Corbett was a Trump supporter, who also had quite a long run in TV and shady past. (Trump and Zelenski are actors who are there to lead their followers into a trap)

But at least Corbett is pointing out the Russian propaganda as well!

[larsenb]

I actually listened to the SOU for the first time in years, probably decades. All I can say is this: As big a joke as Biden is in every possible way, and as much as I have always tried to give Trump every benefit of the doubt, at this point Biden's teleprompter -enhanced (and maybe even drug-enhanced) oratory delivery is a whole lot easier to listen to and stomach than Trump's. For that reason and probably no other, I'll bet his current low approval ratings will go up after the SOU.

I echo that. I see Biden's approval going up significantly. I fear that Trump's latest talking points are serving to further alienate himself from the mainstream Republicans. I wish he would learn when to speak, when to shut up, and how to say it without sounding pompous. I'm starting to think he's not going to fare very well in 2024. I see other (R) fan favorites garnering more support, i.e. Desantis, Abbot, etc.

I didn't listen to the SOU, not being able to stand listening to JB w/out getting sick to my stomach, but my wife listened to bits and pieces and said JB was essentially echoing DT's original platform: closing the boarder, keeping jobs in US, etc.

Now, if this is true, even to a small degree, it seems to echo Clinton's gloming on to conservative solutions after he found his ratings plummeting.

[Artaxerxes]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

Joining Nato is a process. Yes, Poroshenko wanted to start that process, but that again is not the same thing as requesting Nato membership, and certainly is not a reason to start killing people and bombing apartment buildings.
https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-ukraine- ... 90212.html

Where does that article say that the US or Ukraine or anything like that was planning to put a US base and nukes in Ukraine? It discussed the wisdom of a nuclear deterrence, but that seems to be it.

So, again, where's the crisis? The Cuban missile crisis was because Moscow actually put nukes in Cuba. The mere possibility that Ukraine might do somethings is enough to justify invading and killing people?

[mudflap]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

Joining Nato is a process. Yes, Poroshenko wanted to start that process, but that again is not the same thing as requesting Nato membership, and certainly is not a reason to start killing people and bombing apartment buildings.
https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-ukraine- ... 90212.html

Where does that article say that the US or Ukraine or anything like that was planning to put a US base and nukes in Ukraine? It discussed the wisdom of a nuclear deterrence, but that seems to be it.

So, again, where's the crisis? The Cuban missile crisis was because Moscow actually put nukes in Cuba. The mere possibility that Ukraine might do somethings is enough to justify invading and killing people?

It's in the 2nd article:

Further Russian aggression toward Ukraine could be avoided, they suggest, if only President Obama would revive a Bush-era missile defense plan for Europe or at least accelerate the current plan, the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). If only Obama would consider deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and provide additional billions (on top of the hundreds of billions already planned) to accelerate the modernization of the American nuclear arsenal, Putin would never show his bare chest again and return Crimea to Ukraine.

Some of these and other proposals can be found in the recent legislation sponsored by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) titled “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”. The legislation calls for accelerating implementation of the EPAA, halting nuclear weapons reductions under New START and any further reductions until Russia is in compliance with its arms control obligations and is no longer threatening Ukraine, and prohibiting overflights of U.S. territory by Russian aircraft under the Open Skies Treaty using new digital surveillance devices.

I believe Tulsi Gabbard's statement that if we had simply disavowed a push to have Ukraine join NATO, Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. The fact the the entire country of Russia is being deplatformed is concerning. All we are being told is "Russia bad", without knowing any of their concerns- and with being forbidden to ask.

[BroJones]

Orange man bad...
Russian bad....

(who's next?)

[BroJones]

From Farcebook:

QUOTE: Connor Boyack
22m ·
Sixty years ago, almost to the day, the top military leaders of the United States formally proposed secretly killing Americans and blaming it on Cuba, in order to incite domestic panic and outreach.
The goal? To induce Americans to support military intervention in Cuba. The memorandum read:
"The desired result from the execution of this plan would be to place the United States in the apparent position of suffering defensible grievances from a rash and irresponsible government of Cuba and to develop an international image of a Cuban threat to peace in the Western Hemisphere."
The only reason this did not happen? JFK rejected their proposal, called Operation Northwoods.
Had it happened, the public would have been unknowingly misled, their emotions manipulated using false information to further someone's desired political agenda.
When the Ukraine war started, I was emotionally manipulated. I saw images of a heroic looking president in the midst of the conflict, news of Ukrainian soldiers on an island telling a Russian warship to "F off," and tales of the Ghost of Kyiv downing six Russian planes.
These and so many other stories were total lies.
When our attention is focused on one set of circumstances for which there's general consensus, that should raise warning bells. We should realize that pervasive propaganda is circulating, hoping to shift our views in furtherance of someone else's goals. We should be skeptical when everyone else is immediately believing.
A century ago, the father of public relations—Edward Bernays—boldly published his observations about how even then, politicians and the media were manipulating people using psychological tactics that have no doubt been honed and perfected in the decades since:
"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, and our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of…. It is they who pull the wires that control the public mind."
Russia should not be attacking Ukraine, of course. But it's not as simple as so many are making it. There's been proxy warfare for some time, as well as U.S. intervention to replace their elected officials and shift the balance of power at Russia's doorstep.
There are deeper interests at play, and the opinions and attitudes of the public are being twisted to attain certain outcomes. It's happened many times before, and it's happening now.
And beyond the events themselves, the narrowing of our attention to one event elsewhere is a sort of sleight of hand, causing the public to ignore other things we should be focused on and concerned about.
UNQUOTE

[mudflap]

George Soros "helped" the Ukrainian president come to power...

George Soros is CURRENTLY promoting support for Ukraine and it's president.

Do you really need to understand any more than this????

Just as the United States would NEVER allow China to install nuclear missiles in Tijuana...Putin CANNOT allow Ukraine to become part of NATO and do just the same on Russsia's border.

This ENTIRE war could have and should have been avoided....by Ukraine announcing that NATO is OFF the table.

Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process.

"Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process."

Zelenski is wittingly or unwittingly doing the will of Putin. Putin knows he has the power to fight for awhile in Ukraine with only a weak opposition to deal with, just like he knew in all the other places Putin has invaded. It's a way to draw out the strong freedom-loving fighters and put them down. He's trimming up the country of any opposition. Zelenski is sending the people into a trap.

Respectfully disagree.

You have to look at this from 40,000 feet. It's globalism verses nationalism. Globalism is working towards a one world government...Ether 8 stuff. That's why Soros is so involved. NATO is being used by the globalusts to accomplish their objectives. NATO promised they would never move east of Germany...how did that work out?

Everyone has made Putin the Bond villian...by design. Putin is a nationalist. China is aligned with the globalists. Any military leader worth their salt...would tell you that Putin CANNOT let Ukraine join NATO...strategically speaking. Zelenski even understands this, though he is putting on his freedom fighter Huck Fin act. The globalists want Putin gone.

NATO was/is the flashpoint. Putin is not a stupid man, he understands that a NATO member Ukraine would be the beginning of the end for Russia.

The Ukrainian president is a Soros globalist puppit...who could have avoided this nonsense.

Why would it be the end? They already share a border with four Nato countries (five if you count the US border with Russia). Why is Ukraine such an existential threat?

maybe Ukraine wasn't the trigger - maybe Biden is weak, and they watched along with the rest of the world as we bungled Afghanistan. Maybe it's all part of the set up to distract us from the failure of the vaxxines that is bleeding out everywhere except MSM news.

[Sarah]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

Joining Nato is a process. Yes, Poroshenko wanted to start that process, but that again is not the same thing as requesting Nato membership, and certainly is not a reason to start killing people and bombing apartment buildings.
https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-ukraine- ... 90212.html

Where does that article say that the US or Ukraine or anything like that was planning to put a US base and nukes in Ukraine? It discussed the wisdom of a nuclear deterrence, but that seems to be it.

So, again, where's the crisis? The Cuban missile crisis was because Moscow actually put nukes in Cuba. The mere possibility that Ukraine might do somethings is enough to justify invading and killing people?

It's in the 2nd article:

Further Russian aggression toward Ukraine could be avoided, they suggest, if only President Obama would revive a Bush-era missile defense plan for Europe or at least accelerate the current plan, the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). If only Obama would consider deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and provide additional billions (on top of the hundreds of billions already planned) to accelerate the modernization of the American nuclear arsenal, Putin would never show his bare chest again and return Crimea to Ukraine.

Some of these and other proposals can be found in the recent legislation sponsored by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) titled “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”. The legislation calls for accelerating implementation of the EPAA, halting nuclear weapons reductions under New START and any further reductions until Russia is in compliance with its arms control obligations and is no longer threatening Ukraine, and prohibiting overflights of U.S. territory by Russian aircraft under the Open Skies Treaty using new digital surveillance devices.

I believe Tulsi Gabbard's statement that if we had simply disavowed a push to have Ukraine join NATO, Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. The fact the the entire country of Russia is being deplatformed is concerning. All we are being told is "Russia bad", without knowing any of their concerns- and with being forbidden to ask.

Tulsi Gabbard is also a Bernie Sanders supporter

[Artaxerxes]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

Joining Nato is a process. Yes, Poroshenko wanted to start that process, but that again is not the same thing as requesting Nato membership, and certainly is not a reason to start killing people and bombing apartment buildings.
https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-ukraine- ... 90212.html

Where does that article say that the US or Ukraine or anything like that was planning to put a US base and nukes in Ukraine? It discussed the wisdom of a nuclear deterrence, but that seems to be it.

So, again, where's the crisis? The Cuban missile crisis was because Moscow actually put nukes in Cuba. The mere possibility that Ukraine might do somethings is enough to justify invading and killing people?

It's in the 2nd article:

Further Russian aggression toward Ukraine could be avoided, they suggest, if only President Obama would revive a Bush-era missile defense plan for Europe or at least accelerate the current plan, the European Phased Adaptive Approach (EPAA). If only Obama would consider deploying tactical nuclear weapons in Eastern Europe and provide additional billions (on top of the hundreds of billions already planned) to accelerate the modernization of the American nuclear arsenal, Putin would never show his bare chest again and return Crimea to Ukraine.

Some of these and other proposals can be found in the recent legislation sponsored by Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) titled “The Russian Aggression Prevention Act of 2014”. The legislation calls for accelerating implementation of the EPAA, halting nuclear weapons reductions under New START and any further reductions until Russia is in compliance with its arms control obligations and is no longer threatening Ukraine, and prohibiting overflights of U.S. territory by Russian aircraft under the Open Skies Treaty using new digital surveillance devices.

I believe Tulsi Gabbard's statement that if we had simply disavowed a push to have Ukraine join NATO, Russia wouldn't be in Ukraine right now. The fact the the entire country of Russia is being deplatformed is concerning. All we are being told is "Russia bad", without knowing any of their concerns- and with being forbidden to ask.

The article doesn't discuss nukes in Ukraine. The bill it was referring to expanding Nato bases/operations in Poland and the Baltic, not Ukraine.

Screenshot_20220304-142535.png (194.17 KiB) Viewed 475 times

As to the Gabbard thing, first, I don't think it's true. Putin has made clear that believes Ukraine is part of Russia and doesn't actually have sovereignty. It's about much more than just Nato.

But even if that's true, so what? "If Steve hadn't bought such a fancy car, Tom wouldn't have stolen it!!!" That's not a defense to bad behavior. Invading countries and killing people is bad. Doing it because people don't want to be your friends isn't a good excuse to do bad things.

[Artaxerxes]

"Ask yourself why the Ukrainian president wants to poke the bear...and sacrifice his own people in the process."

Zelenski is wittingly or unwittingly doing the will of Putin. Putin knows he has the power to fight for awhile in Ukraine with only a weak opposition to deal with, just like he knew in all the other places Putin has invaded. It's a way to draw out the strong freedom-loving fighters and put them down. He's trimming up the country of any opposition. Zelenski is sending the people into a trap.

Respectfully disagree.

You have to look at this from 40,000 feet. It's globalism verses nationalism. Globalism is working towards a one world government...Ether 8 stuff. That's why Soros is so involved. NATO is being used by the globalusts to accomplish their objectives. NATO promised they would never move east of Germany...how did that work out?

Everyone has made Putin the Bond villian...by design. Putin is a nationalist. China is aligned with the globalists. Any military leader worth their salt...would tell you that Putin CANNOT let Ukraine join NATO...strategically speaking. Zelenski even understands this, though he is putting on his freedom fighter Huck Fin act. The globalists want Putin gone.

NATO was/is the flashpoint. Putin is not a stupid man, he understands that a NATO member Ukraine would be the beginning of the end for Russia.

The Ukrainian president is a Soros globalist puppit...who could have avoided this nonsense.

Why would it be the end? They already share a border with four Nato countries (five if you count the US border with Russia). Why is Ukraine such an existential threat?

maybe Ukraine wasn't the trigger - maybe Biden is weak, and they watched along with the rest of the world as we bungled Afghanistan. Maybe it's all part of the set up to distract us from the failure of the vaxxines that is bleeding out everywhere except MSM news.

I think Biden's weakness in Afghanistan absolutely led Putin to think he could invade Ukraine without repercussions.

[EvanLM]

Because Ukraine might join Nato, something they haven't requested, and then they might get nukes, which Nato doesn't hand out to non-nuclear allies and which no one has proposed, therefore Russia was justified in invading their country?

We're leaping all the way to the US putting a base and nukes in Ukraine?

Actually, Ukraine DID request to join NATO in 2008, something President Bush had pushed for. Then, they fairly and democratically elected Yanukovych, who shelved the idea and wanted to remain neutral. Then the USA (under Obama) caused a coup supported by Soros and overthrew Yanukovych, who then fled Ukraine in 2014. A pro-NATO president (Poroshenko) was installed by the USA (just like Biden), and they started pushing to join NATO and started shelling the separatists in the Donbass region and it all went downhill from there.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/ ... p-ukraine/ has some good info on the Soros influence.


And yes, the plan was to put a base and nukes in Ukraine. https://armscontrolcenter.org/when-all- ... ne-crisis/

Joining Nato is a process. Yes, Poroshenko wanted to start that process, but that again is not the same thing as requesting Nato membership, and certainly is not a reason to start killing people and bombing apartment buildings.
https://www.rferl.org/amp/nato-ukraine- ... 90212.html

Where does that article say that the US or Ukraine or anything like that was planning to put a US base and nukes in Ukraine? It discussed the wisdom of a nuclear deterrence, but that seems to be it.

So, again, where's the crisis? The Cuban missile crisis was because Moscow actually put nukes in Cuba. The mere possibility that Ukraine might do somethings is enough to justify invading and killing people?

Why did the US embassy official website just REMOVE all evidence of Ukrainian bioweapons labs?
March 4, 2022010
by Lance D Johnson, DC Clothesline:



(Natural News) The official US embassy website recently REMOVED all evidence of bio-labs in Ukraine. These bio-labs are funded and jointly operated by the US Department of Defense (DOD). The laboratory documents were public knowledge up until February 25, 2022. These documents include important construction, financing and permit details for bioweapon laboratories in Ukraine. But now the US government is scrubbing these documents from the internet and becoming less transparent with this critical information. This comes at a time when the world population is waking up to the reality of gain-of-function bioweapons research, lab leaks and predatory vaccine and diagnostics development. These bio-labs generate pathogens of pandemic potential that exploit human immune systems and are the foundation for which medical fraud, malpractice, vaccine-induced death and genocide originates.

TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/

Could the existence of these bioweapons’ labs have something to do with Russia’s “special military mission?” For years, Russia has accused the US of developing bioweapons near its borders. Are the Russians currently gathering evidence from these labs? What is the current status of these facilities? What if Russia was not conducting an imperialist invasion and occupation of Ukraine — a reality that has been propagated by Western media outlets? What if Russia was instead targeting international crime syndicates and going after criminal elements in the Ukrainian government that have harmed the Ukrainian people and others around the world?

The U.S. erected a vast network of bio-labs in Ukraine and is scrubbing details from the net
The US DOD funded at least 15 different bio-labs in Ukraine. These are not Chinese or Russian bio-labs. At least eight of these are bioweapons labs are operated exclusively by the US. These laboratories “consolidate and secure pathogens and toxins of security concern” to conduct “enhanced bio-security, bio-safety, and bio-surveillance measures” through “international research partnerships.” Each facility costs the US taxpayers anywhere from $1.8 to over $3 million. The DOD facilitated the permit process to allow Ukrainian scientists to work with pathogens of pandemic potential.

The US DOD works directly with Ukraine’s Ministry of Health, State Service of Ukraine for Food Safety and Consumer Protection, the National Academy of Agrarian Sciences and the Ministry of Defense. This network of bio-labs includes facilities in Odessa, Vinnytsia, Uzhgorod, Lviv, Kiev, Kherson, Ternopil, Crimea, Luhansk and two suspect facilities in Kharkiv and Mykolaiv.

In recent years, many of these labs have reached Bio-safety Level 2 status, allowing scientists to experiment with viruses and bacteria. Over the past two years, these laboratories, in cooperation with the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense, erected four more mobile laboratories to conduct epidemiological surveillance of the Ukrainian people. These laboratories are part of a multi-national working group that creates disease surveillance networks that “strengthen global health security.”

Up until February 25, 2022, the existence and details of these bioweapons labs were public knowledge. The US embassy had previously disclosed the locations and details of these laboratories in a series of PDF files online. On February 26, 2022, the official embassy website shut down the links to all 15 bioweapon laboratories. All the documents associated with these labs have been removed from the internet. If you click on any of the links, the PDF files are no longer available. Thankfully, these files have been archived and can still be accessed. What is the US embassy trying to hide?

Read More @ DCClothesline.com

better be ahead of the game and look fast at any news that is the truth . . .censorship is the name of the game . . .

[EvanLM]

please checkout the utube video regarding mccain, graham and amy globaucher in Ukraine . . . . just google their names and ukraine army and listen carefully . . . before it gets censored . . .