Ukraine invasion

[Renegade]

Poland looking to dump its Mig-29s to USA.... Polish version of Put Up, or Shut Up?

 

[oldag]

This was excerpted from a published report in a private discussion b/t some highly educated and well-informed friends:

"Most of my readers didn’t trust corporate media’s portrayal of Russiagate or the alleged pee tape that was manufactured for effect by Hillary Clinton’s operatives. You laughed when they tried to tell us the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. You were skeptical of the narratives surrounding the after-dark counting of ballots following the 2020 election, as well as the dismissal of mountains of evidence of massive, widespread voter fraud. You didn’t buy the January 6 “insurrection” narrative. You haven’t fallen for Pandemic Panic Theater.

Why, then, are so many people buying into the notion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is some sort of good guy in the Russia-Ukraine fiasco? The answer is found in human nature; we tend to look at things as “A vs B.” If Vladimir Putin is the bad guy, then his opposition must be the good guy. Governments and corporate media networks across the globe are playing on this false notion and compelling even lucid patriots into thinking that Zelenksy is fighting the good fight.

I’m not taking a side in the regional conflict. It’s not because I’m indecisive; my long-time readers know I take a strong stance on just about every important issue. In this situation, neither side is worth supporting. Zelensky is not a good guy, and while it’s extremely unfortunate that Ukrainian civilians as well as reluctant members of both militaries are being victimized by their two leaders, I don’t see Zelenksy’s actions serving the interests of his people. Most importantly, I don’t see an upside for America to get involved.

I’ve received hundreds of emails regarding the conflict. Some try to convince me that Putin is a crusader for good. I’m not ready to buy that. Others tell me that it’s our responsibility to help Ukraine even if I don’t trust their leader. I can appreciate that perspective, but I see no way to help while the conflict is happening. Any intervention on our part will result in more loss of life, not less.

If NATO were to get involved militarily in any function, the loss of life would increase exponentially. We cannot save Ukraine through military action without going all-in and declaring war on Russia. Any “minor” assistance such as no-fly zones or drone strikes will result in a shooting war with Russia at best, possibly a far worse cyberwar, or the worst outcome of all — nuclear.

Volodymyr Zelensky has been documented as a puppet of George Soros. He has worked closely over the years with Klaus Schwab, a graduate of his school of thought with the likes of Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau. Those two blaring klaxons alone should make you question the mainstream narrative that this charismatic and defiant leader is operating from an agenda that benefits his people or the world. He is a pawn who has been set up as a messiah. There’s only one Messiah, and Zelenksy isn’t Him.

The article below from Free West Media tells a very different story about Zelensky and his actions than what we’re being told by corporate media. There’s a reason Russian media has been blocked universally in the western world. I’ve never trusted Russian media, but I’ve never trusted western media, either. Today, we’re getting one side of the story. Hearing the other side may make you question everything.

Vladimir Zelensky is gambling with the lives of Ukrainians to save face: “I don’t see anything heroic about the man. And I think the most heroic thing he can do right now is to come to terms with reality,” Col. Douglas MacGregor told Fox Business News.
MacGregor said Zelensky was a “puppet” who was putting his people at “unnecessary risk” by dragging out the conflict with Russia. MacGregor also said he saw nothing “heroic” about the Ukrainian leader.

According to retired Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Zelensky has been pursuing the same strategy as ISIS in Syria by using civilians as human shields. “They are now mingling with the population, much as we’ve seen in the Middle East […] they ran into cities, used people as shields – the civilian population – and trying to avoid being annihilated.”

MacGregor also underscored that Putin was not trying to “flatten” Ukraine into rubble. “Absolutely not. In fact, he’s [Putin] worked hard to capture most of it intact, surprisingly little damage frankly… Much less damage than we inflicted on Iraq when we went in in ’91 and again in 2003.”

“And quite frankly, most of what comes out of Ukraine is debunked as lies within 24 to 48 hours,” according to MacGregor. “The notions of taking and retaking airfields, all of this is nonsense. It hasn’t happened.”

Zelensky has been trying to avoid “inevitable” defeat, hoping that America would come to his “rescue”. “We are not coming. President Biden has made that very clear,” the Fox guest said, adding that Zelensky was merely a “puppet”. The Ukrainian leader has been spotted in the company of several other WEF puppets.

Washington has been supplying Kiev with plutonium
On Friday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that NATO membership of Ukraine was no longer “on the table”.
Russian media outlets, now banned in the US and the EU, reported that Kiev had received plutonium from Washington, the quality of which made it possible to work on the creation of a nuclear explosive device. RIA Novosti cited a representative of one of the competent departments of the Russian Federation:
“In order to accelerate this R&D, plutonium of the required quality was obtained from abroad at the initial stage. According to available information, the United States has already transferred this material to its partners.” The source added that a key role in the creation of a nuclear explosive device was assigned to the Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology.

Call to assassinate Putin by senior GOP member
US Senator Lindsey Graham has meanwhile launched an hysterical appeal for someone in Russia to “take [Putin] out”. After his call to assassinate Vladimir Putin, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned US Ambassador John Sullivan to present him with a note of protest.

The ministry stressed that unless Moscow sees a US government response to Graham’s statements, the already difficult bilateral relation will suffer even more.

Ukrainian journalist Daria Kaleniuk recently urged British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an emotional appeal to dispatch NATO to Ukraine. But Kaleniuk, who poses as a “journalist”, is in fact also a member of the WEF and runs initiatives funded by Soros throughout Eastern Europe."

So this "expert" thinks Ukraine should go French and just run up the white flag as fast as possible.

I find very little germane material in this article.

 

[leVieux]

That does not answer his question.

The simple answer is we fight for others because it is in our long term best interests to confront evil asap

OK, but in this day of massive misinformation, propaganda and outright LIES; how do we decide which is the least bad of two bad guys ?

And wouldn't it be best to stay out of it until we could be more certain ?

 

[Axxe55]

OK, but in this day of massive misinformation, propaganda and outright LIES; how do we decide which is the least bad of two bad guys ?

And wouldn't it be best to stay out of it until we could be more certain ?

Like how we allied with Stalin over Hitler? Stalin probably killed or had killed many more than Hitler did.

And how did that work out in the end? Which kind of leads us to where we are now with Russia.

 

[m5215]

Damn! The Ukrainians should now be shooting missiles at everything that moves.

These Are All The Types Of Shoulder-Fired Missiles That Are Pouring Into Ukraine

Thousands of man-portable anti-aircraft and anti-armor weapons have already been delivered to Ukraine and thousands more are on the way.

www.thedrive.com

 

[toddnjoyce]

OK, but in this day of massive misinformation, propaganda and outright LIES; how do we decide which is the least bad of two bad guys ?

And wouldn't it be best to stay out of it until we could be more certain ?

What makes you think there’s only two bad guys and whether one person’s perception of what constitutes a ‘bad’ guy is relevant. Lesser of two evils is always a false dichotomy.

The only question that really matters is/was do the norms of international behavior include a unilateral decision to violate another country’s sovereignty? No matter what your answer is, the sam adage of “you break it, you bought it” applies to the invading forces.

 

[Darqhelmet]

This was excerpted from a published report in a private discussion b/t some highly educated and well-informed friends:

"Most of my readers didn’t trust corporate media’s portrayal of Russiagate or the alleged pee tape that was manufactured for effect by Hillary Clinton’s operatives. You laughed when they tried to tell us the Hunter Biden laptop was Russian disinformation. You were skeptical of the narratives surrounding the after-dark counting of ballots following the 2020 election, as well as the dismissal of mountains of evidence of massive, widespread voter fraud. You didn’t buy the January 6 “insurrection” narrative. You haven’t fallen for Pandemic Panic Theater.

Why, then, are so many people buying into the notion that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is some sort of good guy in the Russia-Ukraine fiasco? The answer is found in human nature; we tend to look at things as “A vs B.” If Vladimir Putin is the bad guy, then his opposition must be the good guy. Governments and corporate media networks across the globe are playing on this false notion and compelling even lucid patriots into thinking that Zelenksy is fighting the good fight.

I’m not taking a side in the regional conflict. It’s not because I’m indecisive; my long-time readers know I take a strong stance on just about every important issue. In this situation, neither side is worth supporting. Zelensky is not a good guy, and while it’s extremely unfortunate that Ukrainian civilians as well as reluctant members of both militaries are being victimized by their two leaders, I don’t see Zelenksy’s actions serving the interests of his people. Most importantly, I don’t see an upside for America to get involved.

I’ve received hundreds of emails regarding the conflict. Some try to convince me that Putin is a crusader for good. I’m not ready to buy that. Others tell me that it’s our responsibility to help Ukraine even if I don’t trust their leader. I can appreciate that perspective, but I see no way to help while the conflict is happening. Any intervention on our part will result in more loss of life, not less.

If NATO were to get involved militarily in any function, the loss of life would increase exponentially. We cannot save Ukraine through military action without going all-in and declaring war on Russia. Any “minor” assistance such as no-fly zones or drone strikes will result in a shooting war with Russia at best, possibly a far worse cyberwar, or the worst outcome of all — nuclear.

Volodymyr Zelensky has been documented as a puppet of George Soros. He has worked closely over the years with Klaus Schwab, a graduate of his school of thought with the likes of Emmanuel Macron and Justin Trudeau. Those two blaring klaxons alone should make you question the mainstream narrative that this charismatic and defiant leader is operating from an agenda that benefits his people or the world. He is a pawn who has been set up as a messiah. There’s only one Messiah, and Zelenksy isn’t Him.

The article below from Free West Media tells a very different story about Zelensky and his actions than what we’re being told by corporate media. There’s a reason Russian media has been blocked universally in the western world. I’ve never trusted Russian media, but I’ve never trusted western media, either. Today, we’re getting one side of the story. Hearing the other side may make you question everything.

Vladimir Zelensky is gambling with the lives of Ukrainians to save face: “I don’t see anything heroic about the man. And I think the most heroic thing he can do right now is to come to terms with reality,” Col. Douglas MacGregor told Fox Business News.
MacGregor said Zelensky was a “puppet” who was putting his people at “unnecessary risk” by dragging out the conflict with Russia. MacGregor also said he saw nothing “heroic” about the Ukrainian leader.

According to retired Army Colonel Douglas MacGregor, Zelensky has been pursuing the same strategy as ISIS in Syria by using civilians as human shields. “They are now mingling with the population, much as we’ve seen in the Middle East […] they ran into cities, used people as shields – the civilian population – and trying to avoid being annihilated.”

MacGregor also underscored that Putin was not trying to “flatten” Ukraine into rubble. “Absolutely not. In fact, he’s [Putin] worked hard to capture most of it intact, surprisingly little damage frankly… Much less damage than we inflicted on Iraq when we went in in ’91 and again in 2003.”

“And quite frankly, most of what comes out of Ukraine is debunked as lies within 24 to 48 hours,” according to MacGregor. “The notions of taking and retaking airfields, all of this is nonsense. It hasn’t happened.”

Zelensky has been trying to avoid “inevitable” defeat, hoping that America would come to his “rescue”. “We are not coming. President Biden has made that very clear,” the Fox guest said, adding that Zelensky was merely a “puppet”. The Ukrainian leader has been spotted in the company of several other WEF puppets.

Washington has been supplying Kiev with plutonium
On Friday, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz announced that NATO membership of Ukraine was no longer “on the table”.
Russian media outlets, now banned in the US and the EU, reported that Kiev had received plutonium from Washington, the quality of which made it possible to work on the creation of a nuclear explosive device. RIA Novosti cited a representative of one of the competent departments of the Russian Federation:
“In order to accelerate this R&D, plutonium of the required quality was obtained from abroad at the initial stage. According to available information, the United States has already transferred this material to its partners.” The source added that a key role in the creation of a nuclear explosive device was assigned to the Kharkov Institute of Physics and Technology.

Call to assassinate Putin by senior GOP member
US Senator Lindsey Graham has meanwhile launched an hysterical appeal for someone in Russia to “take [Putin] out”. After his call to assassinate Vladimir Putin, the Russian Foreign Ministry summoned US Ambassador John Sullivan to present him with a note of protest.

The ministry stressed that unless Moscow sees a US government response to Graham’s statements, the already difficult bilateral relation will suffer even more.

Ukrainian journalist Daria Kaleniuk recently urged British Prime Minister Boris Johnson in an emotional appeal to dispatch NATO to Ukraine. But Kaleniuk, who poses as a “journalist”, is in fact also a member of the WEF and runs initiatives funded by Soros throughout Eastern Europe."

I haven’t seen Ukraine invading Russia or carving pieces off. Russia on the other hand. I don’t care who’s the “good guy” that high up in politics you’re most likely dealing with trash anyways. I care about people getting screwed out of their land. Hell look at Georgia it’s still missing land from the 2014 invasion.

 

[Younggun]

I’m looking at the long term effects to the ability of the US to operate freely as a first world nation.

In that sense, it would be extremely dangerous to our national interests for Russia to control Ukraine. And given that Russia has unilaterally invaded Ukraine I have no problem supporting every effort to destroy as much of the Russian military inside the Ukrainian borders as possible, including any retreating forces as a reminder that such incursions will not be tolerated.


Do I think the US government has the backbone to take that kind of action? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sasquatch]

What makes you think there’s only two bad guys and whether one person’s perception of what constitutes a ‘bad’ guy is relevant. Lesser of two evils is always a false dichotomy.

The only question that really matters is/was do the norms of international behavior include a unilateral decision to violate another country’s sovereignty? No matter what your answer is, the sam adage of “you break it, you bought it” applies to the invading forces.

The same could be said of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. We unilaterally violated the sovereignty of both nations and occupied those nations for damn near 20 years.

 

[toddnjoyce]

The same could be said of our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. We unilaterally violated the sovereignty of both nations and occupied those nations for damn near 20 years.

Do me a favor and lookup UNSCR 1386 and 1441. A follow on to 1441 in 2003 would have solved any ambiguity about Iraq, but AFG was not a ‘unilateral’ decision.

 

[gll]

I’m looking at the long term effects to the ability of the US to operate freely as a first world nation.

In that sense, it would be extremely dangerous to our national interests for Russia to control Ukraine. And given that Russia has unilaterally invaded Ukraine I have no problem supporting every effort to destroy as much of the Russian military inside the Ukrainian borders as possible, including any retreating forces as a reminder that such incursions will not be tolerated.


Do I think the US government has the backbone to take that kind of action? Nope.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It's not in Russia's interest for the West to control Ukraine, either, but the Soviet Union did control Ukraine for some 70 years and all we ever thought of Ukraine, then, was that it was part of the USSR... and how dangerous to our interests the USSR was... Now, there is no USSR, but somehow Russia is still dangerous to our ever expanding interests!

Do me a favor and lookup UNSCR 1386 and 1441. A follow on to 1441 in 2003 would have solved any ambiguity about Iraq, but AFG was not a ‘unilateral’ decision.

As for what constitutes "unilateral", that would seem to only depend on how many of your cronies support you in your action... In the cases of Afghanistan and Ukraine, the UN condemned the invasion of Afghanistan just as it has the invasion of Ukraine.

 

[Younggun]

It's not in Russia's interest for the West to control Ukraine, either, but the Soviet Union did control Ukraine for some 70 years and all we ever thought of Ukraine, then, was that it was part of the USSR... and how dangerous to our interests the USSR was...

I’m not sure I understand what you’re getting at here.

FWIW, the main difference between then and now is that now semiconductor grade neon is far more important to every 1st world country on earth, 2nd world as well. And 3rd world as far as anyone offering any sort of aid or the ability to communicate with more than a pencil and paper.

Now, there is no USSR, but somehow Russia is still dangerous to our ever expanding interests!

Yes. Resources are one of the most common reasons for war. Either getting them, or protecting them. Russia controlling the neon means they control a prime ingredient for semiconductors and the manufacture of microchips. Look at the toll the Covid fiasco has taken on the ability to get anything with a chip in it. Now imagine that power in the hands of someone like Putin.

Add to that China seeing the western weakness and taking Taiwan.

Now you have Russia controlling a primary resource and China controlling the primary manufacturing facilities. So we must bow to both for resources necessary to maintain modern standards, not to mention military hardware.

And all the talk of manufacturing microchips in the US will be pointless.

What it comes down to is the fact that Russia wasn’t influential enough to convince Ukraine to join with them. Shockingly, stealing away parts of a country, then saying “if you join a defensive pact we will attack you” didn’t convince them to stay neutral as Russia continued to signal their willingness to attack regardless. Since they lost the battle of influence, they chose to use force. How that is dealt with will have long lasting effects unrelated to any casualties. It has the ability to completely change world power dynamics.

Sadly, a world where conflicts over resources will not exist. I don’t think we will ever reach the “Star Trek” society where you speak in to a wall and what you need appears. And even in that world, there are still resource wars.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

Virtually ALL the info we get now is controlled by Obama via deep state.

Just consider that for a moment.

How reliable has our media "news" been ?

 

[Younggun]

Virtually ALL the info we get now is controlled by Obama via deep state.

Just consider that for a moment.

How reliable has our media "news" been ?

Yeah, Obama ain’t that important.

And why do you keep going back to pointing out reliability of MSM sources when more than once it’s been pointed out that many (or most) of us get out news and information from other sources.

Meanwhile, your sources are just as mysterious as those the MSM claims to have. Unnamed experts who post articles in unknown places. My unnamed experts say that your unnamed experts are wrong. And they have much more experience with the subjects of which you may or may not make reference too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[leVieux]

iQUOTE="Younggun, post: 2539280, member: 9673"]
Yeah, Obama ain’t that important.

And why do you keep going back to pointing out reliability of MSM sources when more than once it’s been pointed out that many (or most) of us get out news and information from other sources.

Meanwhile, your sources are just as mysterious as those the MSM claims to have. Unnamed experts who post articles in unknown places. My unnamed experts say that your unnamed experts are wrong. And they have much more experience with the subjects of which you may or may not make reference too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
[/QUOTE]

Gee, it must be difficult being that angry all the time ?

 

[candcallen]

OK, but in this day of massive misinformation, propaganda and outright LIES; how do we decide which is the least bad of two bad guys ?

And wouldn't it be best to stay out of it until we could be more certain ?

The bully? The one invading a sovereign nation? The one who's restraint is in our national interest.

Just spitballing here.

When you start deep diving beyond the necessary facts no one will stand up to puritan like scrutiny. No gooberment is going to have clean hands. You will always find something wrong but since the Ukrainian people's arent terrorists religious extremists or trying to enforce their will upon others and seem to want the god given right of self determination I say them good Putin bad.

We dont need boots on the ground to bitch slap Putin. The Ukrainian are doing just fine.

Full disclosure my kids a part ukranian on my wifes side. Her Grandmother is Ukrainian.

 

[candcallen]

@leVieux said

Gee, it must be difficult being that angry all the time ?

Funny, angry isnt something any of his posts convey.

Unless by angry you mean daring to question you?

 

[leVieux]

Gee, it must be difficult being that angry all the time ?

Funny, angry isnt something any of his posts convey.

Unless by angry you mean daring to question you?
[/QUOTE]

None of my posts are directed to him. I was just participating in the general discussion, I thought. Seems it is some kind of sin to disagree or to offer something contrary to the majority on here.

 

[candcallen]

Funny, angry isnt something any of his posts convey.

Unless by angry you mean daring to question you?

None of my posts are directed to him. I was just participating in the general discussion, I thought. Seems it is some kind of sin to disagree or to offer something contrary to the majority on here.
[/QUOTE]
You quoted him and said it must be difficult getting angry all the time.

Maybe you made a mistake.

And no one has a problem with difference in opinions it's the foundation to a discussion.

For the record you should name these shadowy sources or many will look at them just as skeptically as they do the MSM.

 

[Younggun]

Funny, angry isnt something any of his posts convey.

Unless by angry you mean daring to question you?


None of my posts are directed to him. I was just participating in the general discussion, I thought.

I wasn’t angry at all. Snarky perhaps, I prefer the term “smart ass”. I’m also participating in the general discussion. Or so I thought.

Seems it is some kind of sin to disagree or to offer something contrary to the majority on here.

Why do you thing that? Have you been threatened with some sort of penalty. If so, I will be happy to discuss that with whoever made such a statement. Or do you believe it’s sinful to counter your narrative leading to claims of others being angry or that not agreeing with others is some sort of sin?


I’m still not angry, just for clarification. And the comments you kept going back to about buying the MSM narrative are still a red herring, since there are very few (if any) posts citing MSM sources.

My point in the post which seemed to give you the impression that I was angry (for some reason) is that citing unknown and unnamed “experts” gives no more credibility than when the MSM claimed to have unnamed experts, anonymous sources, or “people familiar with the thinking of” as sources for their stories. With that standard I or anyone else could equally refute any of your points by simply stating that they “know an expert in the field” who says otherwise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk