Nan was a simple, suburban gal. You might say a cockeyed optimist, who got herself mixed up in the high-stakes game of armchair diplomacy and international disinformation. —Elaine Benes, Seinfeld
Nan was a simple, suburban gal. You might say a cockeyed optimist, who got herself mixed up in the high-stakes game of armchair diplomacy and international disinformation. —Elaine Benes, Seinfeld
Another personal attack from someone who has lost the argument. God forbid an adult female take an interest in what is going on in the world and goes beyond mainstream propaganda in her inquiry. Heavens to Betsy. Can’t have that.
Another personal attack from someone who has lost the argument. God forbid an adult female take an interest in what is going on in the world and goes beyond mainstream propaganda in her inquiry. Heavens to Betsy. Can’t have that.
do you even realize that you have become a trumper? Everything is a personal attack. Just like Elon… all of you have morphed into cult of personality…
Another personal attack from someone who has lost the argument. God forbid an adult female take an interest in what is going on in the world and goes beyond mainstream propaganda in her inquiry. Heavens to Betsy. Can’t have that.
do you even realize that you have become a trumper? Everything is a personal attack. Just like Elon… all of you have morphed into cult of personality…
So what Dave said was not a personal attack? Please explain.
Also explain why responding to personal attacks makes me a Trump supporter. Do Democrats always accept personal attacks graciously?
Lets see if you are capable of having a two way conversation without insulting someone with whom you disagree.
A rare discussion at this show - perhaps the invasion into Russia had a much larger impact then we realize.
These guys are always like this whenever you show them. They seem to be able to say whatever they want without fear of retaliation. How does that happen? I thought you said you got put in jail for saying anything against Putin? I wonder if this show is popular. It seems low budget and the set is so bad. They are just sitting around in chairs wearing jeans and probably wondering where the table went. I think it's good they have news shows with different points of view (not 180 degree different but a wider spread than CNN).
Do you know the name of this show? Because it's just meant to be Julia Davis propaganda we don't get any details that would help us understand this show in context of Russian media.
A rare discussion at this show - perhaps the invasion into Russia had a much larger impact then we realize.
These guys are always like this whenever you show them. They seem to be able to say whatever they want without fear of retaliation. How does that happen? I thought you said you got put in jail for saying anything against Putin? I wonder if this show is popular. It seems low budget and the set is so bad. They are just sitting around in chairs wearing jeans and probably wondering where the table went. I think it's good they have news shows with different points of view (not 180 degree different but a wider spread than CNN).
Do you know the name of this show? Because it's just meant to be Julia Davis propaganda we don't get any details that would help us understand this show in context of Russian media.
I'm guessing a few of these guys won't be regulars anymore.
A rare discussion at this show - perhaps the invasion into Russia had a much larger impact then we realize.
These guys are always like this whenever you show them. They seem to be able to say whatever they want without fear of retaliation. How does that happen? I thought you said you got put in jail for saying anything against Putin? I wonder if this show is popular. It seems low budget and the set is so bad. They are just sitting around in chairs wearing jeans and probably wondering where the table went. I think it's good they have news shows with different points of view (not 180 degree different but a wider spread than CNN).
Do you know the name of this show? Because it's just meant to be Julia Davis propaganda we don't get any details that would help us understand this show in context of Russian media.
I'm guessing a few of these guys won't be regulars anymore.
Can we access this channel or is it just a Russia thing?
Posting this knowing that there may be replies attacking the people quoted instead of dealing with the substance, but so be it. A sample:
“Don’t call Ukraine’s attack an ‘invasion.’ Russia’s attacks into Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 were true invasions, decisions to seize, hold and even annex Ukrainian by territory. Ukraine has no permanent designs on sovereign Russian territory. …
“Under this logic, Ukraine isn’t attacking Russia to seize Russian land; it’s attacking to relieve pressure on its beleaguered forces in the Donbas region. If it can create enough of a crisis in Kursk, with a strong-enough force, Russian leaders will have little choice but to move combat troops from the battlefront in Ukraine to the new battlefield in Kursk to try to dislodge the Ukrainian soldiers who are there. There are, in fact, preliminary reports that Russia is already transferring forces from the main zone of conflict in the south to help block the Ukrainian advance in Kursk.”
Posting this knowing that there may be replies attacking the people quoted instead of dealing with the substance, but so be it. A sample:
“Don’t call Ukraine’s attack an ‘invasion.’ Russia’s attacks into Ukraine in 2014 and 2022 were true invasions, decisions to seize, hold and even annex Ukrainian by territory. Ukraine has no permanent designs on sovereign Russian territory. …
“Under this logic, Ukraine isn’t attacking Russia to seize Russian land; it’s attacking to relieve pressure on its beleaguered forces in the Donbas region. If it can create enough of a crisis in Kursk, with a strong-enough force, Russian leaders will have little choice but to move combat troops from the battlefront in Ukraine to the new battlefield in Kursk to try to dislodge the Ukrainian soldiers who are there. There are, in fact, preliminary reports that Russia is already transferring forces from the main zone of conflict in the south to help block the Ukrainian advance in Kursk.”
I'm glad you now know, as evidenced by your comments about replies, that most of the people/institutions quoted are toxic, such as the Institute for the Study of War and Kimberly Kagen. As I have posted before, this entity is funded by weapons manufactures and thus has a neocon point of view. The other Kagen he speaks with is also at a neocon think tank. He says he spoke to multiple "experts" about the war and was surprised that they all said the same things! I wonder why!!!! It's interesting that you want to separate what's quoted from the "substance" because they are one and the same. The piece is profoundly pro-war and a cheerleader for keeping the war going by giving people false hope that the Ukrainians might prevail--in fact the author says they must prevail.
In this piece there is no proxy war--it's simple a conflict between Ukraine and Russia but it will be bad for the US if Ukraine loses because " it could alter the global balance of power," Of course he does not explain how that works, because that would require admitting some secrets about who is really fighting this war and for what reasons. This is the neocons talking--no reverse gear--just keep fighting to maintain our global balance of power or die trying.
He does not want it called an "invasion" because he is carefully scripting and promoting this action to best present it to western audiences in mainstream media publications. Some of his analysis is more measured about the prospects of winning--most likely he does not want to end up with egg on his face. Here is the real story: The Ukrainians were desperate and desperate people do desperate things and this was a desperate act that will not change the outcome of the war, but did piss off Putin and got lots of favorable western press and most likely probably more money. It also decreases the chance for negotiations.
He says the purpose of the conflict was to get Russia to move troops from the Donbass where they are decisively winning, to Kursk, and thus weaken the Russian army. I don't think that's going to make a difference, because Russia, unlike Ukraine, has plenty of troops. They can move a few from the Donbass and still have an advantage. Also, I think the original objective of this raid-invasion-whatever-was to seize the Kursk nuclear power plant. That would have been a huge victory for Ukraine and provided them a good bargaining chip down the road. But, they will not be able to do that now, and they are just losing men and equipment, which is something Ukraine cannot afford to do.
The author thinks people will still be taking about this war in 50 to 100 years. He does not seem to understand that when you play chicken with a major nuclear power there might not be any people 50 to 100 years from now.
It's not a proxy war. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and is fighting back. The U.S. did not want this war.
Ukraine was invaded by Russia because Putin wants Ukraine back in the fold, like Belarus.
Whether the Ukrainian counter offensive into Russia is a good move remains to be seen. The Ukrainian General Staff are not stupid. That doesn't mean that they always make the best decisions, but unlike the millions of armchair quarterbacks, they have some idea of what they need to do.
It's not a proxy war. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and is fighting back. The U.S. did not want this war.
Ukraine was invaded by Russia because Putin wants Ukraine back in the fold, like Belarus.
Whether the Ukrainian counter offensive into Russia is a good move remains to be seen. The Ukrainian General Staff are not stupid. That doesn't mean that they always make the best decisions, but unlike the millions of armchair quarterbacks, they have some idea of what they need to do.
The US planned this war and they took over Ukraine in 2014 so they could provoke Russia and get it going. Putin does not want Ukraine. He had a good trading thing going with them. He has plenty of resources in Russia. He does not need more land. I have provided many postings demonstrating this.
They got good PR with the invasion into Russia. That may be what they need to keep Project Ukraine afloat, at least until the elections.
Where is your evidence of these claims? I always ask and you never provide them.
It's not a proxy war. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and is fighting back. The U.S. did not want this war.
Ukraine was invaded by Russia because Putin wants Ukraine back in the fold, like Belarus.
Whether the Ukrainian counter offensive into Russia is a good move remains to be seen. The Ukrainian General Staff are not stupid. That doesn't mean that they always make the best decisions, but unlike the millions of armchair quarterbacks, they have some idea of what they need to do.
The US planned this war and they took over Ukraine in 2014 so they could provoke Russia and get it going. Putin does not want Ukraine. He had a good trading thing going with them. He has plenty of resources in Russia. He does not need more land. I have provided many postings demonstrating this.
They got good PR with the invasion into Russia. That may be what they need to keep Project Ukraine afloat, at least until the elections.
Where is your evidence of these claims? I always ask and you never provide them.
Why on Earth would I bother posting links to any sorts of references. You have your point of view on the world and have committed your life to rearranging facts and timelines to support your view.
Anybody who knows anything about Russia knows that Ukraine occupies a special place in the hearts and minds of many Russians.
And, pray tell why would we want a proxy war in Ukraine especially give the expectation that Russia would prevail quickly and Ukraine would be reduced to partisan resistance if any.
Would you please provide us with a list of US dominated countries and the year in which we took control of each. This should come in handy during future discussions.
Would you please provide us with a list of US dominated countries and the year in which we took control of each. This should come in handy during future discussions.
Thanks.
ooh, ooh. Pick me. I know the answer. Please, pick me.
NATO countries, Syria, Japan, South Korea, Philippines, Ukraine.
We call the shots in all these countries. All serious people know this. Or, as the Dothraki might say, "It is known."
It's not a proxy war. Ukraine was invaded by Russia and is fighting back. The U.S. did not want this war.
Ukraine was invaded by Russia because Putin wants Ukraine back in the fold, like Belarus.
Whether the Ukrainian counter offensive into Russia is a good move remains to be seen. The Ukrainian General Staff are not stupid. That doesn't mean that they always make the best decisions, but unlike the millions of armchair quarterbacks, they have some idea of what they need to do.
The US planned this war and they took over Ukraine in 2014 so they could provoke Russia and get it going. Putin does not want Ukraine. He had a good trading thing going with them. He has plenty of resources in Russia. He does not need more land. I have provided many postings demonstrating this.
They got good PR with the invasion into Russia. That may be what they need to keep Project Ukraine afloat, at least until the elections.
Where is your evidence of these claims? I always ask and you never provide them.
Why on Earth would I bother posting links to any sorts of references. You have your point of view on the world and have committed your life to rearranging facts and timelines to support your view.
Anybody who knows anything about Russia knows that Ukraine occupies a special place in the hearts and minds of many Russians.
And, pray tell why would we want a proxy war in Ukraine especially give the expectation that Russia would prevail quickly and Ukraine would be reduced to partisan resistance if any.
I have my point of view which I have defended with references. The idea that these are rearranged is just what my detractors say when they don't have support for their opinions. You may look down on my views, but you present yours without anything to back them up and you get away with that because it's the standard, mainstream view.
We want this proxy war because we want to rule the world, as we did until recently. We have been committed to being the biggest, strongest, country in the world since sometime after WWII. We want to get rid of any country that challenges that. Russia, China, Iran are all countries we want to knock out of the competition. This was laid out in the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992.
Yes, Ukraine has a special place in the hearts and minds of many Russians. That does not mean Putin wants to invade and take it over. Correlation does not mean causation.
Would you please provide us with a list of US dominated countries and the year in which we took control of each. This should come in handy during future discussions.
Thanks.
Can't you look that up yourself? Here is a sample that I happen to have handy. There are many, many more.
America has no business talking about “free and fair” elections in Latin America. pic.twitter.com/yVTEDgfd8O
I have my point of view which I have defended with references. The idea that these are rearranged is just what my detractors say when they don't have support for their opinions. You may look down on my views, but you present yours without anything to back them up and you get away with that because it's the standard, mainstream view.
We want this proxy war because we want to rule the world, as we did until recently. We have been committed to being the biggest, strongest, country in the world since sometime after WWII. We want to get rid of any country that challenges that. Russia, China, Iran are all countries we want to knock out of the competition. This was laid out in the Wolfowitz Doctrine of 1992.
Yes, Ukraine has a special place in the hearts and minds of many Russians. That does not mean Putin wants to invade and take it over. Correlation does not mean causation.
And yet - you made fun of us when we said Vlad would invade - and you can never explain Vlad's Nazi army that does his bidding throughout the world including having a presence in Ukraine since 2014. Why aren't they ever referenced in your "references"?
Vlad media is hell bent on returning Ukraine to the motherland and reuniting fellow sisters and brothers. According to you - decimating the land and people was the only option he had in place to do this. PVW has done a remarkable job countering your maidan timelines - but every time your caught in something - you pivot - like for me - you appear clueless about Wagner and never seem to care to do much research on them. Show me theUran idiots mentioning them.
Vlad pulled the trigger to cause the most death and destruction to occur in Europe since WWII - yes or no?
Can't you look that up yourself? Here is a sample that I happen to have handy. There are many, many more.
No, I'm asking for your contention on this point. No one else's views matter to me on this. Also, that just says that there were military coups in those countries - not necessarily that we fomented them and then wrested control away from the people there. I'm sure that you don't contend that we control Cuba.
Can't you look that up yourself? Here is a sample that I happen to have handy. There are many, many more.
No, I'm asking for your contention on this point. No one else's views matter to me on this. Also, that just says that there were military coups in those countries - not necessarily that we fomented them and then wrested control away from the people there. I'm sure that you don't contend that we control Cuba.
Not all coups last. In Ukraine they helped put a guy in in 2004 but it didn’t stick. In Cuba, well you know what happened there.
Opportunistically supporting the pro-West faction during mass protests, as we did in Ukraine in 2013-4, is not a coup, much less a military coup.
Those protests started without our help.
I doubt that. I’m sure there were NED projects to help it along. I agree there were people not happy with the corrupt government, but that person got replaced by another corrupt person, favored by the west.
Nan was a simple, suburban gal. You might say a cockeyed optimist, who got herself mixed up in the high-stakes game of armchair diplomacy and international disinformation. —Elaine Benes, Seinfeld