since beating back the initial Russis push to Kiev has UKE won any major batte?

John Armfield said:

---

since beating back the initial Russis push to Kiev has UKE won any major batte?

---

Yes. After beating back the initial Russian push in April of 2022, they then retook Kherson, Kharkiv, and Lyman and rolled back almost 60% of Russia's gains in September-November of 2022.


Which major battle has Russia won since then? Adviika was a small abandoned town. Bhakmut was won by a Russian PMC that no longer exists.

Get Off My Lawn said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

No plan past defending Andiivka

---

Do you or do you not believe Ukraine has defenses between Adviika and Kiev?

---

Starting the day by moving goalposts I see.

Of course there's some degree of defense in depth. But a small gain is a breaking of established lines, which is noteworthy given that you claimed it was a classic stalemate a couple pages back.

Does a small gain develop into a route? Likely not (javelins are likely to cripple any mechanized attempt to develop this into a strategic break through).

But your lack of impartiality is as clownish as attempts to claim Ukrainian non-sovereignty.

---

This yellow line represents Russia's gains in the past 5 months circled in red. Definitely doesn't scream stalemate...

Quote:

---

But your lack of impartiality is as clownish as attempts to claim Ukrainian non-sovereignty.

---

You realize you, a few posters here, and Russia are the only ones that believe Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation right? Even China recognizes Ukraine as sovereign.

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

But your lack of impartiality is as clownish as attempts to claim Ukrainian non-sovereignty.

---

You realize you, a few posters here, and Russia are the only ones that believe Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation right? Even China recognizes Ukraine as sovereign.

---

Again with the reading comprehension

John Armfield said:

---

since beating back the initial Russis push to Kiev has UKE won any major batte?

---

They took Robotyne. It was a big hairy audacious deal. You can look up the propaganda about this leading to a breakthrough the dragon's teeth to the Black Sea etc. But anyway, here's a summary of what I think are some valid points Putin discussed today;

Quote:

---

TASS has gathered the key takeaways from what the head of state said.

On dialogue with US
The United States is inviting Moscow to engage in strategic stability dialogue, while trying to inflict "a strategic defeat on the battlefield" on Russia, which is hypocritical.

Washington's statements that it is interested in such a dialogue "is demagoguery ahead of the US presidential election:" "They simply want to show their citizens - and everyone else - that they still rule the world."

Allegations that Russia plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space are unfounded: "Such bogus stories <...> are a ploy to drag us into talks on their terms, which only benefit the US."

Moscow will not discuss strategic stability issues with Washington in isolation from its national interests. "If you want to discuss serious security and stability issues, which are important for the entire planet, then it should be done in its entirety."

On West's goals
Western countries are seeking not only to contain Russia's development: "In Russia's place they want to see a dependent, declining and dying space where they can do whatever they want."
The West would like to do to Russia what was done to Ukraine, "sowing discord in our home and weakening us from within." "However, they miscalculated."

On special military operation
Russia will do everything to achieve the goals of its special military operation. "We weren't the ones who unleashed the war in Donbass but, as I have repeatedly said, we will do everything to end it."
"Our forces are firmly holding the initiative. They are steadily advancing in a number of operational areas, liberating more and more land."
"Our armed forces have gained enormous combat experience. <...> The combat capability of the armed forces has increased manifold."

On Russian-made weapons
All previous plans to boost Russia's defense industry, which were announced in the 2018 State of the Nation Address, have either have been implemented or are nearing completion. The Kinzhal and Tsirkon hypersonic missile systems are already being used in the special military operation; the Avangard hypersonic missiles and Peresvet laser systems are on combat duty, and the trials of the Burevestnik cruise missile and the Poseidon unmanned underwater vehicle are in their final stages.
"The first serially produced Sarmat heavy ballistic missiles have already been put in service with the army. We will soon demonstrate them in the combat duty mode at their deployment bases."
"Work is underway on a number of other advanced weapons systems. We will definitely hear about the new achievements of our researchers and weapons makers."

On fate of potential invaders
It was the West that provoked the conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East and other regions, but now, it alleges that Russia plans to attack Europe: "They are talking nonsense."
However, Russian forces in the Western strategic direction need to be reinforced in order to eliminate the threats coming from another wave of NATO's expansion.
Whoever is considering the possibility of an intervention in Russia must remember the fate of those who did that in the past. "Now, the consequences will be far more tragic for potential invaders." "After all, they must understand that we also have weapons <...> capable of hitting targets on their soil."
Russia's strategic nuclear forces "are in full state of readiness for guaranteed use."

On arms race
Western countries are trying to drag Russia into an arms race, "repeating the trick they managed to play on the Soviet Union in the 1980s." This is why it is important "to allocate resources in the most rational way and build an effective economy of the armed forces."
On new safety circuit in Eurasia
"We clearly need to work to make sure that a new circuit of equal and indivisible security is formed in Eurasia in the foreseeable future. We are ready for a substantive conversation on the issue with all interested countries and organizations."

---

A multipolar world is indeed one that I believe will be safer, net.

Full article:https://t.co/yEqMazLQvx

— David Sacks (@DavidSacks) February 29, 2024

Here is an image, from Voyager, of all of the territory that has changed hands since the war began;

Quote:

---

They took Robotyne.

---

He didn't say last summer's offensive. He said after Russia's initial "push to Kiev", which was in February of 2022 that was halted in April of 2022.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

Quote:

---

But your lack of impartiality is as clownish as attempts to claim Ukrainian non-sovereignty.

---

You realize you, a few posters here, and Russia are the only ones that believe Ukraine isn't a sovereign nation right? Even China recognizes Ukraine as sovereign.

---

Again with the reading comprehension

---

…yeah… not sure how my juxtaposition of silliness was misinterpreted as participation therein…

🇺🇸🚨‼️ Hunter finally admitted “The Big Guy” is Joe Biden.

So 10% … pic.twitter.com/sOMemQJqyS

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) February 29, 2024

Putin: ⚡️⚡️⚡️
They have already forgotten what war is.
They think that all this is a cartoon for them.

“The West provoked a conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other regions of the world and continues to lie. Now, without any embarrassment, they say that Russia allegedly… pic.twitter.com/aRM8DOcHnH

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) February 29, 2024

Please note, for the reading impaired, this is not intended as an endorsement of his message/mission.

War is bad for you, and the economy;

Quote:

---

Joe Biden wants you to believe that spending money on weapons is good for the economy. That tired old myth regularly repeated by the political leaders of both parties could help create an even more militarized economy that could threaten our peace and prosperity for decades to come. Any short-term gains from pumping in more arms spending will be more than offset by the long-term damage caused by crowding out new industries and innovations, while vacuuming up funds needed to address other urgent national priorities.

The Biden administration's sales pitch for the purported benefits of military outlays began in earnest last October, when the president gave a rare Oval Office address to promote a $106-billion emergency allocation that included tens of billions of dollars of weaponry for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. MAGA Republicans in Congress had been blocking the funding from going forward and the White House was searching for a new argument to win them over. The president and his advisers settled on an answer that could just as easily have come out of the mouth of Donald Trump: jobs, jobs, jobs. As Joe Biden put it:

Quote:

---

"We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores… equipment that defends America and is made in America: Patriot missiles for air defense batteries made in Arizona; artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas; and so much more."

---

It should be noted that two of the four states he singled out (Arizona and Pennsylvania) are swing states crucial to his reelection bid, while the other two are red states with Republican senators he's been trying to win over to vote for another round of military aid to Ukraine.

Lest you think that Biden's economic pitch for such aid was a one-off event, Politico reported that, in the wake of his Oval Office speech, administration officials were distributing talking points to members of Congress touting the economic benefits of such aid. Politico dubbed this approach "Bombenomics." Lobbyists for the administration even handed out a map purporting to show how much money such assistance to Ukraine would distribute to each of the 50 states. And that, by the way, is a tactic companies like Lockheed Martin routinely use to promote the continued funding of costly, flawed weapons systems like the F-35 fighter jet. Still, it should be troubling to see the White House stooping to the same tactics.

---

Bombenomics. How utterly vile/pathetic, even for a 25 year old WH intern serving as acting press secretary/POTATUS speech writer.

End funding the Biden proxy war over Donbas/Crimea.

nortex97 said:

---

🇺🇸🚨‼️ Hunter finally admitted “The Big Guy” is Joe Biden.

So 10% … pic.twitter.com/sOMemQJqyS

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) February 29, 2024

Putin: ⚡️⚡️⚡️
They have already forgotten what war is.
They think that all this is a cartoon for them.

“The West provoked a conflict in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other regions of the world and continues to lie. Now, without any embarrassment, they say that Russia allegedly… pic.twitter.com/aRM8DOcHnH

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) February 29, 2024

Please note, for the reading impaired, this is not intended as an endorsement of his message/mission.

War is bad for you, and the economy;

Quote:

---

Joe Biden wants you to believe that spending money on weapons is good for the economy. That tired old myth regularly repeated by the political leaders of both parties could help create an even more militarized economy that could threaten our peace and prosperity for decades to come. Any short-term gains from pumping in more arms spending will be more than offset by the long-term damage caused by crowding out new industries and innovations, while vacuuming up funds needed to address other urgent national priorities.

The Biden administration's sales pitch for the purported benefits of military outlays began in earnest last October, when the president gave a rare Oval Office address to promote a $106-billion emergency allocation that included tens of billions of dollars of weaponry for Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. MAGA Republicans in Congress had been blocking the funding from going forward and the White House was searching for a new argument to win them over. The president and his advisers settled on an answer that could just as easily have come out of the mouth of Donald Trump: jobs, jobs, jobs. As Joe Biden put it:

Quote:

---

"We send Ukraine equipment sitting in our stockpiles. And when we use the money allocated by Congress, we use it to replenish our own stores… equipment that defends America and is made in America: Patriot missiles for air defense batteries made in Arizona; artillery shells manufactured in 12 states across the country in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Texas; and so much more."

---

It should be noted that two of the four states he singled out (Arizona and Pennsylvania) are swing states crucial to his reelection bid, while the other two are red states with Republican senators he's been trying to win over to vote for another round of military aid to Ukraine.

Lest you think that Biden's economic pitch for such aid was a one-off event, Politico reported that, in the wake of his Oval Office speech, administration officials were distributing talking points to members of Congress touting the economic benefits of such aid. Politico dubbed this approach "Bombenomics." Lobbyists for the administration even handed out a map purporting to show how much money such assistance to Ukraine would distribute to each of the 50 states. And that, by the way, is a tactic companies like Lockheed Martin routinely use to promote the continued funding of costly, flawed weapons systems like the F-35 fighter jet. Still, it should be troubling to see the White House stooping to the same tactics.

---

Bombenomics. How utterly vile/pathetic, even for a 25 year old WH intern serving as acting press secretary/POTATUS speech writer.

End funding the Biden proxy war over Donbas/Crimea.

---

Shades of McCain.

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

Teslag said:

---

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

---

"Invited"

The Partisan divide;

Quote:

---

There has clearly been a shift in public sentiment when it comes to additional funding for Ukraine in its war with Russia. Shortly after the invasion, most (though not all) American voters seemed to be ready to back Ukraine against Vladimir Putin's aggression. Joe Biden quickly jumped in on the same side, perhaps a bit too heavily, declaring a policy of "as much as it takes for as long as it takes." But now, according to a new survey from the Associated Press and NORC, support for the next traunch of funding for Zelensky and company has broken down along party lines. A majority of Democrats say that America is spending "too little" in this regard, while a similar majority of Republicans say that we're already spending "too much." The blame for the lack of action is being squarely placed on the shoulders of the House GOP. (Associated Press)
…
One of the larger drivers of decreased support for additional Ukraine aid appears to be Donald Trump. He's expressed skepticism over the Senate foreign aid bill and is taking a decidedly more isolationist, America-first approach to the issue. Some Republicans who answered the survey quoted Trump and appeared to agree with him.

Somewhat ironically, while he's taking all of the heat for this, Speaker Johnson hasn't even ruled out some additional funding for Zelensky. All he's said is that the border crisis is America's top priority and that needs to be addressed first. He's using the only tool that the GOP has at its disposal for now, that being the power of the purse. If Joe Biden relents and fully closes the border, a vote on the Senate aid bill will likely follow shortly thereafter, or possibly a revised House version of it.

Meanwhile, support for aid to Israel remains strong across the board, with the exception of the pro-Hamas liberals in Congress and on America's college campuses. Yet all of the members of Congress complaining about the aid for Ukraine are unwilling to move forward with a standalone bill to help Israel. It appears that Democrats are increasingly out of step with the priorities of the public. We shall find out in November if that translates to a shift in support for the leftist cause.

---

Biden considers further depleting American stockpiles on his own orders;

Quote:

---

President Joe Biden may send more American weapons and ammunition to Ukraine, even though Congress is stalling additional funding to replace them, according to reports.

The Pentagon has not made a final decision, but officials are considering the idea as another way to support Ukraine despite the potential political pitfalls for the Biden administration.
Depleting American stockpiles in order to support Ukraine would anger many Republicans who believe

Biden has to prioritize the defense of the United States first.

Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., who serves at chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, told the New York Times that the idea was 'on the table.

The Defense Department has around $4 billion authorized to send Ukraine from its own stockpiles, according to CNN, but that the Pentagon remains reluctant to use them without reassurance that they will get replaced.

---

Quote:

---

The Wall Street Journal publishes the "punishing peace terms" of Russia for Ukraine at the draft peace negotiations in 2022.

Key points of the deal include:

Ukraine potentially joining the EU but not military alliances like NATO

Crimea remaining under unconditional Russian control. The future of the "LNR/DNR" to be determined in personal negotiations between Zelensky and Putin.

Other occupied territories by Russia after February 24, 2022, were not mentioned in the article, but it was stated that Russian troops agreed to withdraw from them.

Foreign weapons and troops cannot be sent to Ukraine, and the Ukrainian army was to be reduced to certain levels.

The Russian language was to be used alongside Ukrainian in official spheres, but Ukraine did not agree to this. Ukraine rejected the proposal to exclude all mutual sanctions.

Security for Ukraine in the agreement would be guaranteed by the P5.

International security guarantees would not apply to Crimea and Sevastopol. Russia wanted Belarus to be added as a guarantor, while Ukraine wanted Turkey. In the event of an attack on Ukraine, Russia proposed that all guarantor states agree on a response, but Kyiv opposed this, wanting its airspace to be closed and requiring the guarantor states to establish a no-fly zone and provide weapons. Russia disagreed with this.

The WSJ comments that this document "appears to be largely based on the 1990 treaty that created unified Germany." Negotiations continued until June 2022, including via Zoom, but ultimately, they ceased at Ukraine's initiative. "Ultimately, no deal was reached. The scale of Russian military crimes in Ukraine became apparent, Ukraine's military successes improved, and the West provided weapons to support Kyiv." It was previously stated by Arakhamia that Ukraine refused to sign a peace agreement in 2022, partly due to Boris Johnson's position.

So, Putin wasn't lying after all about this peace deal. These "punishing terms" in retrospect, look pretty damn good for Ukraine.

Source: https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-ukraine-peace-deal-2022-document-6e12e093

---

🇺🇦🇷🇺🚨‼️ Dog-tag of an 17 yo old Ukranian girl (Svitlana), who was killed by Russian troops during an Ukranian counterattack.

Not a medic.

The Russian soldiers were shocked to see someone like that in an assault unit with a gun in her hands. pic.twitter.com/Avf0JfGku8

— Lord Bebo (@MyLordBebo) March 1, 2024

Ukraine's population is somewhere in the mid 20 millions...it was 34m before the war. There are 6m official refugees, and more unofficial, so maybe 26 to 27m left in country, barely half its peak population. https://t.co/9uqtv5FgRL

— David P. Goldman (@davidpgoldman) February 28, 2024

Oh look, Olaf Scholz just confirmed what I've been saying all along: that "Ukrainian" cruise missile attacks in Crimea - using British and French missiles - are actually targeted by British and French advisors and the only thing the Ukrainians actually do is pull the trigger.… pic.twitter.com/pQG1IOuUU1

— Armchair Warlord (@ArmchairW) March 1, 2024

So a CIA-backed Ukrainian intel official is now telling us that, actually, Navalny died of natural causes. You’ve got to wonder what’s going on here. It’s pretty obvious. https://t.co/FELC3Z5E2I

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 26, 2024

"Maidan revolution" in Brazil; are we going to be asked to send money and weapons to them too now to 'preserve democracy?'

Ep. 78 The Biden administration helped install a pro-Chinese government in Brazil, which immediately shut down opposition media and began arresting dissidents. Here are two of its victims. pic.twitter.com/U2C7P0K91O

— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) February 29, 2024

⚡️ Czech PM: 'No one in Europe is going to send troops to Ukraine.'

Czech Prime Minister Petr Fiala said that European countries are not going to send troops to Ukraine to fight in the war, the Czech news agency CTK reported on Feb. 29.https://t.co/b2WLYW54IY

— The Kyiv Independent (@KyivIndependent) March 1, 2024

Russias “unprovoked” invasion of Ukraine was totally provoked and could have been easily prevented. Watch these warmongering clowns. pic.twitter.com/XsFIXxx52T

— Kim Dotcom (@KimDotcom) March 1, 2024

Slava war!

I don't see how Russia can win at this rate

Wow 98 Su-34s downed in a single day of the SMO…

Ukrainian Air Defense operators are single handily turning the tide of this war.

Glory to the heroes! pic.twitter.com/iOc9jtkug7

— ayden (@squatsons) February 29, 2024

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

---

"Invited"

---

We quite literally were. In fact it was more akin to being begged back.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

---

"Invited"

---

We quite literally were. In fact it was more akin to being begged back.

---

You had your justifications. Putin has his.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

---

"Invited"

---

We quite literally were. In fact it was more akin to being begged back.

---

You had your justifications. Putin has his.

---

Ya and they aren't remotely the same thing. Hitler had justifications as well.

Quote:

---

On West's goals

Western countries are seeking not only to contain Russia's development:

---

Why do you think the Russians seem to think that development has to involve taking over or puppeting their neighbors? Without going back that far (lets use the end of the Russian Empire so just over 100 years), the Russians have invaded, grabbed via threat, or puppeted the following neighbors:

Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Ukraine
Moldova
Romania
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan
Iran
Afghanistan

This list makes me think that neighbors of Russia should have every right to feel a threat.

Of course this doesn't include the countries that ended up under Soviet control post WW2 where they basically forced all under their permanent sphere. The Czech communist party was only polling around 10% pre WW2 for example yet the Russians made sure they were the only party post war.

How far should the Russians be allowed to expand? Should anything ever held by a past Russian Empire or USSR be fair game?

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wasn't one if the reasons for the special military operation to take out the Nazis there? Why isn't that listed as a demand?

---

Look again

"Regime change in Kiev"

---

Are you a fan of Tucker Carlson?

He said on a podcast with Lex Fridman this week that the justification for the war for purposes of denazification was "one of the dumbest things I'd ever heard." He is wrong for saying that?

Do you feel that Zelensky is a nazi?

Aggie1205 said:

---

Quote:

---

On West's goals

Western countries are seeking not only to contain Russia's development:

---

Why do you think the Russians seem to think that development has to involve taking over or puppeting their neighbors? Without going back that far (lets use the end of the Russian Empire so just over 100 years), the Russians have invaded, grabbed via threat, or puppeted the following neighbors:

Finland
Estonia
Latvia
Lithuania
Poland
Ukraine
Moldova
Romania
Georgia
Armenia
Azerbaijan

This list makes me think that neighbors of Russia should have every right to feel a threat.

Of course this doesn't include the countries that ended up under Soviet control post WW2 where they basically forced all under their permanent sphere. The Czech communist party was only polling around 10% pre WW2 for example yet the Russians made sure they were the only party post war.

How far should the Russians be allowed to expand? Should anything ever held by a past Russian Empire or USSR be fair game?

---

I think as usual such an analyses depends where you want to draw a line as to when 'relevant' history should be studied, and who should be trusted to draw conclusions. I don't really consider myself an expert on Russian history, so I am probably the wrong party to ask, as such.

From my perspective I am not so much concerned about those country's worries, right or wrong (though I would note some have contingents more aligned with Moscow than Nato/EU), I am just concerned I cannot trust Joe Biden/Nuland and the CIA, primarily, to be remotely honest in their actions/planning/goals, let alone act in my interests, which is why I do not support further funding of the Nuland regime in Ukraine, or weapons for it's ongoing war.

"I never saw that horse, I was only borrowing him, and he was lame anyway." The neocons miscalculated abysmally on Ukraine, and now want us to believe that all they really cared about in the first place was China.

— David P. Goldman (@davidpgoldman) March 1, 2024

Quote:

---

With revelations over the last several years about the role the CIA has played interfering in U.S. politics, it seems fair to ask:

Does the CIA run America?

In 2016, then CIA Director John Brennan helped organize a campaign to smear the Republican candidate for President as a Russian spy. Much of that operation was run out of London, where future CIA Director Gina Haspel was station chief. And weeks before the 2020 election, several former CIA directors were among the more than 40 former agency employees who signed a letter dismissing reports of Hunter Biden's laptop as Russian "disinformation."

And recently, we were given a clearer picture of why Ukraine and Russia keep showing up in deep state operations. Sure, the CIA is defending its political allies, like the Bidens, but by targeting Trump and other America First figures, it's primarily protecting its own equities.

An article published this week gave a look at the CIA's secret relationship with Ukraine, including the U.S. clandestine service's role in the Ukraine-Russia war. What this latest article on the CIA-Ukraine relationship shows is that U.S. intelligence services have become a government unto themselves unaccountable to the American people and their elected representatives.

Did you know that the CIA has built 12 spy installations on Ukraine's border with Russia? Or what about the fact that U.S. spy services provide Kyiv with intelligence for targeted missile strikes, track Russian troop movements, and help support Ukrainian spy networks? In short, the CIA is waging war on Russia.

Whether it serves the U.S. national interest to be waging a secret war against a foreign power with a formidable nuclear arsenal is a question left unanswered.

The lead writer on the article is Adam Entous, a media operative who appears to be favored by U.S. spy services to message on their behalf.

During the Russiagate scandal, Entous' name was on scores of articles based on leaks of classified information. None of them of course came from whistleblowers calling out government corruption and fraud. Rather, these selectively crafted leaks were designed to prosecute a political operation targeting the sitting President and his aides.

For instance, Entous was an author of a story sourced to an illegally leaked transcript of a perfectly fine phone call between yours truly (General Mike Flynn), now chair of Amerifuture, and the Russian ambassador to Washington, Sergei Kislyak. That article contributed to the CIA's effort to pushed me out of the White House and advanced the plot against Trump.

Of course, it's not great for the Ukrainian people either, at war with a much more powerful state thanks in part to the incompetence and corruption of their own leadership, supported by U.S. government bureaucracies that left a record of failure in foreign wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

And naturally all of it is funded by all of us, the American taxpayer.

It's enough to make you throw up your hands in despair but we won't. We can't. Remember that in the last major war America won, it didn't get easier after our troops landed on the beaches of Normandy. Before a conclusive WWII victory, our soldiers fought through the dense woods of France and endured a winter of hell during the Battle of the Bulge. It's hard right now for us, and the woods are going to get denser. And the deep state counter-movements will become fiercer, especially as they come to recognize they're in retreat.

This is our fight for freedom at home. It's our fight for the Republic. We were born for this time.

Join our team, become a champion for America.

---

I distrust the CIA, our censorship regime, CGY, 3F, and other Chinese compromised institutions (including of course the Xiden familia.

Another question: who really runs the CIA?

— JuliansRum (@ItsJuliansRum) March 1, 2024

Thank you up front for reading this important @Amerifuture article:

With revelations over the last several years about the role the CIA has played interfering in U.S. politics, it seems fair to ask:

Does the CIA run America?

In 2016, then CIA Director John Brennan helped…

— General Mike Flynn (@GenFlynn) March 1, 2024

So basically a non answer on your part and you made sure to blame Russia for nothing, even in a future hypothetical.

Teslag said:

---

So basically a non answer on your part and you made sure to blame Russia for nothing, even in a future hypothetical.

---

Your attempt to summarize my thoughts/positions remains dishonest/wrong. As per above, I recognize though that often this is just an abjectly horrible reading comprehension level.

Quote:

---

I think as usual such an analyses depends where you want to draw a line as to when 'relevant' history should be studied, and who should be trusted to draw conclusions. I don't really consider myself an expert on Russian history, so I am probably the wrong party to ask, as such.

From my perspective I am not so much concerned about those country's worries, right or wrong (though I would note some have contingents more aligned with Moscow than Nato/EU), I am just concerned I cannot trust Joe Biden/Nuland and the CIA, primarily, to be remotely honest in their actions/planning/goals, let alone act in my interests, which is why I do not support further funding of the Nuland regime in Ukraine, or weapons for it's ongoing war.

---

Do you ever step back and think that perhaps your hate for Biden/Nuland might be so great that you would justify any activity viewed as counter to them as being positive?

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

If Trump came out in support of efforts against Putin, would you support Trump?

Quote:

---

Desiring to restore your civilization to its heights of power and glory is childlike?

---

Would all former empires be justified in trying to take back territory they once held? How far back should they be allowed to go? Should Turkey try to create the Ottoman Empire? Should Afghanistan try to recreate the Mughal empire? The Brits?

Aggie1205 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think as usual such an analyses depends where you want to draw a line as to when 'relevant' history should be studied, and who should be trusted to draw conclusions. I don't really consider myself an expert on Russian history, so I am probably the wrong party to ask, as such.

From my perspective I am not so much concerned about those country's worries, right or wrong (though I would note some have contingents more aligned with Moscow than Nato/EU), I am just concerned I cannot trust Joe Biden/Nuland and the CIA, primarily, to be remotely honest in their actions/planning/goals, let alone act in my interests, which is why I do not support further funding of the Nuland regime in Ukraine, or weapons for it's ongoing war.

---

Do you ever step back and think that perhaps your hate for Biden/Nuland might be so great that you would justify any activity viewed as counter to them as being positive?

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

If Trump came out in support of efforts against Putin, would you support Trump?

---

I'll leave Trump out for now, despite your hope/effort, thx. Zelensky's complicity in the impeachment scam and political games around American politics have done him no favors with conservative voters though.

Before I reply again to another question, maybe you can clarify what you think Nuland has done well in Ukraine and elsewhere, in funding the Maidan revolution against a democratic government in Kiev, stoking this war, including the 2014 accession of Crimea, and why this is a 'good' investment for Americans given our situation in the world and at home today. Further, why should we trust the CIA about their bases in Ukraine serving our interests and desperately needing more funding for sabotage etc. vs. the Russians? Finally, why should our aid to Ukraine not be subject to audit/IG inspection, given the rampant historical, and ongoing corruption in Ukraine which is very widely reported including by Ukrainian officials directly when discovered?

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

---

"Invited"

---

We quite literally were. In fact it was more akin to being begged back.

---

You had your justifications. Putin has his.

---

Ya and they aren't remotely the same thing.Hitler had justifications as well.

---

In your mind, I'm certain its true.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Teslag said:

---

"Provoked"


Putin may be the one world leader more brain dead than Biden

---

"Invited"

---

We quite literally were. In fact it was more akin to being begged back.

---

You had your justifications. Putin has his.

---

Ya and they aren't remotely the same thing.Hitler had justifications as well.

---

In your mind, I'm certain its true.

---

I see we are trolling again today. Carry on.

nortex97 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

I think as usual such an analyses depends where you want to draw a line as to when 'relevant' history should be studied, and who should be trusted to draw conclusions. I don't really consider myself an expert on Russian history, so I am probably the wrong party to ask, as such.

From my perspective I am not so much concerned about those country's worries, right or wrong (though I would note some have contingents more aligned with Moscow than Nato/EU), I am just concerned I cannot trust Joe Biden/Nuland and the CIA, primarily, to be remotely honest in their actions/planning/goals, let alone act in my interests, which is why I do not support further funding of the Nuland regime in Ukraine, or weapons for it's ongoing war.

Do you ever step back and think that perhaps your hate for Biden/Nuland might be so great that you would justify any activity viewed as counter to them as being positive?

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

If Trump came out in support of efforts against Putin, would you support Trump?

---

I'll leave Trump out for now, despite your hope/effort, thx. Zelensky's complicity in the impeachment scam and political games around American politics have done him no favors with conservative voters though.

Before I reply again to another question, maybe you can clarify what you think Nuland has done well in Ukraine and elsewhere, in funding the Maidan revolution against a democratic government in Kiev, stoking this war, including the 2014 accession of Crimea, and why this is a 'good' investment for Americans given our situation in the world and at home today. Further, why should we trust the CIA about their bases in Ukraine serving our interests and desperately needing more funding for sabotage etc. vs. the Russians? Finally, why should our aid to Ukraine not be subject to audit/IG inspection, given the rampant historical, and ongoing corruption in Ukraine which is very widely reported including by Ukrainian officials directly when discovered?

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

---

I think the US and CIA need to step back and not play nearly as significant a role in other countries as we have historically the past 70 years. I also haven't seen any concrete evidence that the US was the only reason any regime change has happened in Ukraine. I understand if you don't trust US government statements on the matter. Buy if that is the case, why fully trust sources like the twitter accounts such as amuse and Lord Bebo?

I do think any aid should be subject to audit/IG inspection. I think this should apply to all aid not just Ukraine as many of the places we provide aid deal with significant corruption. Is Ukraine really the most corrupt country in the world? I doubt it. Heck look at Latin America, the caucuses, and even Russia. I also will add that I don't think we should be unconditionally supporting any country to a great extent. We should be cutting back spending in many ways.

Also, I do think Trump is relevant. He was President for 4 years during this time and could have pulled back those CIA bases and according to him, stopped the fighting in the Dombas which of course was still happening when he was in charge. He didn't.

I hope I addressed what you wanted. If you are willing to continue discussing, I am still curious if there is a line that Putin could cross that you would feel US support would be justified for whatever that impacted country is.

nortex97 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Quote:

---

I think as usual such an analyses depends where you want to draw a line as to when 'relevant' history should be studied, and who should be trusted to draw conclusions. I don't really consider myself an expert on Russian history, so I am probably the wrong party to ask, as such.

From my perspective I am not so much concerned about those country's worries, right or wrong (though I would note some have contingents more aligned with Moscow than Nato/EU), I am just concerned I cannot trust Joe Biden/Nuland and the CIA, primarily, to be remotely honest in their actions/planning/goals, let alone act in my interests, which is why I do not support further funding of the Nuland regime in Ukraine, or weapons for it's ongoing war.

---

Do you ever step back and think that perhaps your hate for Biden/Nuland might be so great that you would justify any activity viewed as counter to them as being positive?

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

If Trump came out in support of efforts against Putin, would you support Trump?

---

I'll leave Trump out for now, despite your hope/effort, thx. Zelensky's complicity in the impeachment scam and political games around American politics have done him no favors with conservative voters though.

Before I reply again to another question, maybe you can clarify what you think Nuland has done well in Ukraine and elsewhere, in funding the Maidan revolution against a democratic government in Kiev, stoking this war, including the 2014 accession of Crimea, and why this is a 'good' investment for Americans given our situation in the world and at home today. Further, why should we trust the CIA about their bases in Ukraine serving our interests and desperately needing more funding for sabotage etc. vs. the Russians? Finally, why should our aid to Ukraine not be subject to audit/IG inspection, given the rampant historical, and ongoing corruption in Ukraine which is very widely reported including by Ukrainian officials directly when discovered?

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

---

Notice this question went completely unanswered again. Nortex cannot, at all, say anything negative or critical about Russia or Putin.

Quote:

---

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wasn't one if the reasons for the special military operation to take out the Nazis there? Why isn't that listed as a demand?

---

Look again

"Regime change in Kiev"

---

Are you a fan of Tucker Carlson?

He said on a podcast with Lex Fridman this week that the justification for the war for purposes of denazification was "one of the dumbest things I'd ever heard." He is wrong for saying that?

Do you feel that Zelensky is a nazi?

---

Not a fan of Tucker but he's entitled to his opinion.

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wasn't one if the reasons for the special military operation to take out the Nazis there? Why isn't that listed as a demand?

---

Look again

"Regime change in Kiev"

---

Are you a fan of Tucker Carlson?

He said on a podcast with Lex Fridman this week that the justification for the war for purposes of denazification was "one of the dumbest things I'd ever heard." He is wrong for saying that?

Do you feel that Zelensky is a nazi?

---

Not a fan of Tucker but he's entitled to his opinion.

---

Do you feel that Zelensky is a nazi?

Aggie1205 said:

---

nortex97 said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

I think as usual such an analyses depends where you want to draw a line as to when 'relevant' history should be studied, and who should be trusted to draw conclusions. I don't really consider myself an expert on Russian history, so I am probably the wrong party to ask, as such.

From my perspective I am not so much concerned about those country's worries, right or wrong (though I would note some have contingents more aligned with Moscow than Nato/EU), I am just concerned I cannot trust Joe Biden/Nuland and the CIA, primarily, to be remotely honest in their actions/planning/goals, let alone act in my interests, which is why I do not support further funding of the Nuland regime in Ukraine, or weapons for it's ongoing war.

Do you ever step back and think that perhaps your hate for Biden/Nuland might be so great that you would justify any activity viewed as counter to them as being positive?

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

If Trump came out in support of efforts against Putin, would you support Trump?

---

I'll leave Trump out for now, despite your hope/effort, thx. Zelensky's complicity in the impeachment scam and political games around American politics have done him no favors with conservative voters though.

Before I reply again to another question, maybe you can clarify what you think Nuland has done well in Ukraine and elsewhere, in funding the Maidan revolution against a democratic government in Kiev, stoking this war, including the 2014 accession of Crimea, and why this is a 'good' investment for Americans given our situation in the world and at home today. Further, why should we trust the CIA about their bases in Ukraine serving our interests and desperately needing more funding for sabotage etc. vs. the Russians? Finally, why should our aid to Ukraine not be subject to audit/IG inspection, given the rampant historical, and ongoing corruption in Ukraine which is very widely reported including by Ukrainian officials directly when discovered?

Thanks, I look forward to your response.

---

I think the US and CIA need to step back and not play nearly as significant a role in other countries as we have historically the past 70 years. I also haven't seen any concrete evidence that the US was the only reason any regime change has happened in Ukraine. I understand if you don't trust US government statements on the matter. Buy if that is the case, why fully trust sources like the twitter accounts such as amuse and Lord Bebo?

I do think any aid should be subject to audit/IG inspection. I think this should apply to all aid not just Ukraine as many of the places we provide aid deal with significant corruption. Is Ukraine really the most corrupt country in the world? I doubt it. Heck look at Latin America, the caucuses, and even Russia. I also will add that I don't think we should be unconditionally supporting any country to a great extent. We should be cutting back spending in many ways.

Also, I do think Trump is relevant. He was President for 4 years during this time and could have pulled back those CIA bases and according to him, stopped the fighting in the Dombas which of course was still happening when he was in charge. He didn't.

I hope I addressed what you wanted. If you are willing to continue discussing, I am still curious if there is a line that Putin could cross that you would feel US support would be justified for whatever that impacted country is.

---

Ok, 'nearly as significant a role' though is intractably vague. I would argue we should not have any, let alone a dozen, CIA bases in Ukraine. In any case the CIA logic is...illogical;

Inconsistent logic:
- NATO must expand to Ukraine because Russia would not attack a NATO country. But also...
- If Russia defeats Ukraine, then Russia will move on and attack a NATO country pic.twitter.com/t7nhQMV50o

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) March 1, 2024

Second, "Lord Bebo" is a twitter account I cite as providing a (frequently updated) perspective we cannot get sometimes from...our own propaganda or Kiev's. It can be useful, if also at other times highly dishonest, and wrong. A counterbalance is needed in sources, imho, or people would believe the absurd Ukrainian propaganda for instance around shooting down dozens of SU-34's etc. this month. It's that simple.

Ukraine I've linked to studies indicating it is among the most corrupt in the world, probably the most in Europe still today, on par with/just past Russia. This is true or moreso today with all the foreign money flowing in unchecked/audited. It's easy to look up comparisons, though they reported improving slightly last year.

I don't mean Trump is irrelevant just that I don't find it productive to discuss as he is merely a private citizen in America today, just as I am (and I presume most readers). I view the Russian invasion during Biden's presidency as provoked, though I am sure someone will troll with a snarky comment about that. Toleration of foreign low-intensity wars is a hallmark of Trump policy, during his administration, and a lack of escalation/fueling those is what I see him as having worked toward, but I know many can disagree. To the extent it matters, the CIA's role in Trump's antagonism toward Ukraine/itself is worth consideration;

Still fascinating 60 Minutes won’t cover this story. It’s bigger than Watergate. https://t.co/gVG2oKpkd8

— @amuse (@amuse) March 1, 2024

Why are some things never allowed to be publicly discussed?

The attack on Nord Stream was the greatest attack on European energy architecture in history and and act of war
- Yet, after the US admitted it was not Russia, we (Europeans) shifted from hysteria to complete silence and disinterest. Why?https://t.co/CtnNkx5EqY pic.twitter.com/EWOpDfGw7f

— Glenn Diesen (@Glenn_Diesen) March 1, 2024

Last, "a line Putin could cross" I guess is vague to me. I think part of that is by design; Putin struck Ukraine because he didn't want another Nato CIA proxy there, and felt as per his Tucker interview a cultural/historical duty to protect Russians involved and their assets/resources in Donbas/Crimea/Sevastopol etc. He's indicated no intention, despite clear attempts to imply otherwise, about Poland etc. However, there are parties seeking to escalate Nato-directed attacks on Russia to a broader war. Medvedev is a hot head on this stuff but it is an absurdity to continue to fund this directly as a dangerous escalation, I think most would agree;

On the phone conversation between the Bundeswehr officers about planned attacks against our country

Our historic adversaries, the Germans, have once again turned into our archenemies. Just take a look at how thoroughly and in what detail the krauts are discussing long-range…

— Dmitry Medvedev (@MedvedevRussiaE) March 1, 2024

Teslag said:

---

Notice this question went completely unanswered again. Nortex cannot, at all, say anything negative or critical about Russia or Putin.

Quote:

---

Is there a line that Putin could cross that you do feel would justify support from the US?

---

---

Just replying again to note that I simply do not respect you as an honest poster/person. I appreciate your bumping the thread over time but at the same time any conversation where you have dozens of posts a day on it involves inevitably a bunch of grade school taunts which just again degrades the conversation/discussion/points.

Aggie1205 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

PlaneCrashGuy said:

---

Aggie1205 said:

---

Wasn't one if the reasons for the special military operation to take out the Nazis there? Why isn't that listed as a demand?

---

Look again

"Regime change in Kiev"

---

Are you a fan of Tucker Carlson?

He said on a podcast with Lex Fridman this week that the justification for the war for purposes of denazification was "one of the dumbest things I'd ever heard." He is wrong for saying that?

Do you feel that Zelensky is a nazi?

---

Not a fan of Tucker but he's entitled to his opinion.

---

Do you feel that Zelensky is a nazi?

---

I've seen little evidence he is, and little evidence he isn't, so haven't made up my mind.