Posted on 09/26/2025 3:10:49 PM PDT by UMCRevMom@aol.com
“Dare to Ukraine” is The Kyiv Independent’s wartime travel series that shows the country beyond the war headlines.
In Episode 4 of “Dare to Ukraine: Village,” Masha’s quiet rural routine is interrupted by a new mission: uncover the local history and debunk Russian propaganda myths about Ukraine. What starts as a simple day in the countryside turns into a journey through Ukraine’s past and present — proving that even the smallest villages and communities carry stories of independence that shatter Russian lies."
“Spamming pays well?”
Each of us has freedom of thought and of expression. I am not here to dictate my point of view.
Let us be respectful as we share our mutual freedom of thought and expression regardless that we hold a differing viewpoint.
The need for NATO ended with the fall of the Berlin Wall, but bureaucracies never die, they transmogrify and metastasize.
VIDEOS
1. NATO Expansion is a LIE
Jake Broe *I am a United States Air Force veteran who served as a Nuclear and Missile Operations Officer (13N)
647K subscribers
1,171,171 views
January, 2025
Length 35:50
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gxssycoxz0
“The Russians have been very successful in promoting their propaganda in Western democracies and one of their biggest lies is the claim that NATO promised never to expand and enlarge after the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This is a lie. No promise was made and NATO expansion started in response to Russian aggression, not the other way around.”
2. Russia in CHAOS! Fuel Shortages Everywhere Now!
Jake Broe *I am a United States Air Force veteran who served as a Nuclear and Missile Operations Officer (13N)
647K subscribers
9-25-2025
Length 28:43
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zGfJee5Oh4
“Ukraine has struck another major Russian oil refinery in Bashkortostan and successfully struck the oil export terminal in Tuapse. Ukraine shot down another Su-34 bomber and destroyed two An-26 transport planes on Crimea.” Russia’s losses are increasing as Ukraine’s drone fleet expands their target list.
*Groan*
I thought Jim gave her the warning about that?
Charlie Kirk shared that disagreement is not division.
“Our nation will survive and thrive not by silencing each other, but by continuing to listen, challenge, and—most importantly—talking with our fellow Americans in meaningful conversation. So for the love of God — let’s keep talking.”
On Free Republic, Mr. Robinson has created this forum to use as an opportunity to: connect, understand, and preserve FREEDOM of civil speech and expression.
VIDEO
NEW RECORD! Ukraine Rocks 60 Strategic Russian Energy Objects in 6 Weeks!
RFU News — Reporting from Ukraine
692K subscribers
9-26-2025 3:00 P.M. EST
Video Length 6:30
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSgn0VKWnEI
⚠️ Watch RFU in 20 languages: https://www.youtube.com/@RFU/channels
I am Ukrainian. On this channel I will give you the latest news about the war in Ukraine.
“Today, the biggest news comes from the Russian Federation.
Here, Ukraine’s long-range drone campaign has achieved phenomenal results, effectively dismantling a fifth of Russia’s oil refining system. What began as small-scale probing raids has now evolved into a sustained large-scale campaign aimed at dismantling Russia’s ability to refine oil on a national scale.
The hardest-hit region is Samara, as a swarm of 29 drones struck the Kuibyshev refinery, one of Russia’s largest fuel producers, followed by a series of repeat attacks that stalled repair efforts and forced an extended shutdown. Fires erupted across hydrogen plants, storage tanks, and distillation units, knocking the facility entirely offline. Just days later, the nearby Syzran refinery was struck in a coordinated follow-up that damaged its AVT-6 unit and major reservoirs. Both sites were hit six times within 6 weeks, with the latest strikes targeting replacement components and delaying any meaningful progress on repairs.
In Saratov, Ukrainian drones returned three times in under three weeks to strike storage terminals and transfer pipelines, effectively resetting damage just as restoration began. The Ilsky and Afipsky refineries in Krasnodar Krai were also struck five times total within the last 6 weeks, completely disrupting output. The most recent hits damaged newly installed cracking and catalytic reforming units, suggesting Ukraine is not only degrading capacity but actively working to keep these sites nonfunctional. Across these locations, the rhythm of repeated strikes is now core to the campaign: plants are not just damaged, they are being systematically kept offline.
Russian authorities have already started avoiding publishing full repair timelines, likely to obscure the scale of internal disruption and deny Ukraine further insight into the opportune moments to strike. These are not isolated events, as over the past two months, Ukraine has struck at least 15 major oil sites, including refineries and pumping stations across Russia. Conservative estimates suggest over 21 percent of Russia’s total refining capacity has been damaged or disabled in the past two months alone.
In Volgograd, Ukraine hit a refinery that processes over 15 million tons of crude annually, the largest in southern Russia. The strike sparked multiple fires across processing units, forcing an emergency shutdown that halted operations at Russia’s largest refinery in the south. In Ryazan, fires broke out in two of the highest-capacity refining modules, the AVT-4 crude distillation unit and ELOU-AT-6 atmospheric-vacuum unit, which were both damaged; together they account for much of the plant’s daily output.
At Kirishi, one of the largest refineries in northwest Russia, the damage done by an unknown number of Ukrainian drones reduced output by up to 40 percent. In Ufa, one of the densest fuel-producing hubs in the country, Ukraine struck two refineries just kilometers apart, as both the Bovo-Ufimsky and Salavat refineries were hit. At Salavat, Ukraine set fire to the AVT-4 cracking unit, which processes heavy crude into gasoline and diesel, making it essential for both military and civilian fuel supplies across the region. In Bashkortostan, more than 1,400 kilometers from Ukraine, the Gazprom Salavat plant was damaged in a rare long-range drone strike that bypassed early warning systems completely. Ukraine also hit targets even deeper, in the Komi Republic, drones struck near Ukhta, the first confirmed attack on infrastructure linked to Russian Arctic oil flow, and until now, this region was considered well beyond feasible drone range.
Pumping stations and pipelines have also become targets, as in the Vladimir region, the Vtorovo pumping station was hit three separate times, knocking out part of the diesel supply line to the Moscow ring. In a separate operation, Ukrainian drones hit the Kuibyshev-Tikhoretsk pipeline network, setting fire to pumping nodes and temporarily halting flows to the Novorossiysk export terminal. In practical terms, this has the same effect as striking a refinery; if oil cannot be moved in or out, production and output halt completely.
Satellite imagery of the Volgograd and Ryazan strikes confirmed extensive fires and damage to refining towers and storage tankers, indicating successful penetration of core infrastructure. Multiple rounds of strikes not only prolong outages but also exhaust local emergency response teams, and Russia’s rushed attempts to restart operations after each attack are often exploited by Ukraine, which, at times, follows up with strikes to destroy newly installed components before they can enter service.
Overall, the effects are compounding, as Russia is not only losing core refining capacity but also the backup systems.
that once gave it room to absorb such low blows.
The slow pace of repairs coupled with legal limits on refinery protection leaves these sites vulnerable and
Ukraine can exploit these changes.”
The game is again afoot for this Ukrainian push for propaganda. On this thread some Jake Broe videos were offered. So some various things about this fellow....
An article about Broe....The original poster cited over an hour of his "analysis." For which he gets paid:Jake Broe Net Worth – YouTube Earnings, Air Force Salary A little peek into Jake Broe.
Here's his Bluesky account --- Jake Broe @realjakebroe.bsky.social
Here's a Jake Broe Kyiv Post article from over a year ago, Aug. 17, 2024.
Source: "Jake Broe: Russians are Mass Surrending" "Broe explains what internal pressures Russia is now facing that could well lead the world's largest country to a brutal defeat."
He had a "Jake Broe Show" for awhile, with a last post of November 4, 2022:
Here's a latest Kyiv Post entry dated 27 May 2025:
Russia Can’t Win This War: Jake Broe on Why Collapse Is Coming "Jake Broe tells Kyiv Post that battlefield losses, elite unrest, and sanctions are pushing Putin’s regime toward collapse in a war Russia may not be able to sustain for much longer."
Here's an estimate of Jake Broe's monthy remuneration of from $17K to $52K per month:Like so many of "her" sources, the channel uploads from the United States, not Ukraine.
Jake Broe Has a Bluesky account?
That’s a leftest Social Media Platform.
Why are his Videos allowed to be linked here?
A question best left to the Robinsons and FR moderators.
Please note that I provided as many links as were quickly and easily found through simple searches.
After the Jake Broe links, "she" posted a link to "I am Ukrainian." Here are some sourced details on him....
whois.com info on rfunews.comTo place the "I am Ukrainian" in context, we go to an import shop run by Ukrainian expats, wherein both Ukrainian and Russian are spoken by the clientele. I know, because I asked. Nice folks. Here in these United States.Domain: rfunews.com
Registered On: 2024-11-07
Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC
Registrant info "protected" by Domains By Proxy, LLC, in Tempe, Arizona.The X / Twitter account associated with both the YouTube channel and "news" site shows another web address which returns a 404 "not found" because the 2020 site -- a merch shop using San Francisco and Hong Support helped identify him.
But under the RFUNews "privacy" one learns that he still by "Who We Are" --- • Controller: Alitance Limited
• Company Registration: 3091458
• Registered Address: 29 Austin Road, Unit 1102, 11/F, TST, Kowloon, Hong KongSource: PRIVACY POLICY AND COOKIES Last Updated: 16 December 2024
The "Imprint" page for RFU News also details the Hong Kong address for "services."
Source: Subject to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy, our Services are provided by Alitance Limited.
So one learns that "I am Ukrainian" asks for donations and "eyes" through its sites, through Patreon, BuyMeACoffee and more. From his United States - Joined Mar 4, 2022 location.
The cottage industry of YouTube channels, X accounts, bluesky accounts, and more all tell -- along with the location of the nameservers which cannot be hidden -- testify that "I am Ukrainian" is and has been in the United States all this while, and set up shop at one time through a company in SF, uses support services from a Chinese company, and more show this no-name trusted by an older woman in Florida is not what he appears. Perhaps neither is she.
And the man told you to knock it off! Remember?
Gorbachev himself said that was not a promise.
That was an offhand statement by Baker to the USSR (not the Russian federation) about not putting troops in the former East Germany.
NATO accepting requests for membership from Estonia, Poland, Romania etc are not at all related to that 1989 comment about East Germany made to the USSR (a country that does not exist anymore)
That's not what James Baker said.
https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/16117-document-06-record-conversation-between
Statements said in negotiations which are NOT included in ANY treaty, are not binding.
E, Pluribus —it’s a common narrative around NATO’s history, often rooted in that 1990 memo you linked, and it’s not supporting your argument.
While the document does capture a notable exchange between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, it doesn’t support the idea of a binding “promise” against all future NATO expansion. Instead, it reflects a narrow, hypothetical discussion tied to German reunification amid the Cold War’s end.
this wasn’t a formal commitment that was later broken, and subsequent Russian leaders engaged with NATO enlargement
1. Baker Did Not Make a Formal “Promise” Against NATO Expansion
The conversation on February 9, 1990, was exploratory and informal—part of early U.S.-Soviet talks on German reunification, not a treaty negotiation. Baker’s famous “not one inch eastward” phrasing was used three times, but always as a hypothetical reassurance to build trust, not as a legal or diplomatic pledge. Declassified U.S. memos describe it as Baker “trying out” the formula to gauge Gorbachev’s reaction, without any follow-up agreement or codification in writing.
No treaty or joint statement emerged from this meeting on NATO’s future boundaries; the focus was resolving immediate post-Cold War uncertainties, like the status of a unified Germany.
Historians like Robert Zoellick (a U.S. negotiator at the time) have emphasized: “I was in those meetings, and Gorbachev has [also] said there was no promise not to enlarge NATO.” The full declassified memo you cited (Document 6 from the National Security Archive) aligns with this—it’s a record of conversation, not a commitment document.
2. The Statement Was Specifically About Not Deploying NATO Troops in East Germany
Baker’s words were explicitly linked to the territory of the former German Democratic Republic (GDR, or East Germany), not a broader bar on NATO’s growth.
In the memo, Baker poses it as a choice: “Would you prefer to see a unified Germany outside of NATO, independent and with no U.S. forces or would you prefer a unified Germany bound by NATO in which NATO’s jurisdiction would not move one inch eastward, let alone on to East German territory?”
He clarifies: “neither the president nor I intend to liquidate the Soviet military presence in East Germany.” This was about reassuring the Soviets that a NATO-member unified Germany wouldn’t immediately host Western troops in what was then Soviet-occupied East German soil—a sensitive flashpoint during reunification talks.
That assurance held: The 1990 Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany explicitly banned NATO forces in the former GDR until Soviet troops fully withdrew in 1994, and no permanent deployments occurred there until much later (post-1999, after enlargement). Broader “expansion” to other countries wasn’t on the table.
3. The Statement Was Made to the USSR, Not the Russian Federation
This exchange happened on February 9, 1990, between the U.S. and the Soviet Union (USSR)—a multinational communist state that included Russia but also 14 other republics.
The USSR dissolved in December 1991, birthing the independent Russian Federation and other sovereign states (like Ukraine, Estonia, and Poland).
Any informal U.S.-Soviet dialogue couldn’t bind the post-Soviet Russian government, just as it wouldn’t bind the new independent nations emerging from the USSR’s collapse.
Gorbachev himself represented the USSR’s collective leadership, not a future “Russia” in isolation. This distinction is crucial: Post-1991, NATO’s enlargement discussions involved newly sovereign Eastern European countries voluntarily seeking membership, not extensions of Soviet territory.
4. It Says Nothing About NATO Accepting Membership Requests from Poland, Estonia, etc.
The 1990 talks zeroed in on Germany—nothing in the memo (or related Two Plus Four negotiations) addresses future applications from independent states like Poland, Hungary, or the Baltic republics.
Those countries, freed from Soviet control after 1991, pursued NATO as sovereign democracies to secure against potential revanchism, invoking NATO’s open-door policy (enshrined in its 1949 founding treaty, which allows any “European state” to join if it furthers North Atlantic security). Baker’s phrasing was a one-off hypothetical about German borders, not a veto on self-determination for others. As the National Security Archive’s declassified collection notes, Western leaders in 1990-91 gave assurances *only* on Germany; enlargement to ex-Warsaw Pact states arose later, driven by those nations’ requests amid Russia’s 1990s turmoil (e.g., Chechen wars, economic collapse).
5. Gorbachev Himself Confirmed This Was Not a Promise
In a 2014 interview with the foreign policy journal *Russia Beyond the Headlines* (now *Russia Beyond*), Gorbachev explicitly debunked the “broken promise” myth:
“The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
He reiterated that the GDR-specific agreement was honored for decades, and while he later criticized NATO’s 1990s enlargement as a “mistake” in spirit, he never claimed a formal pledge was violated—because there wasn’t one.
Gorbachev’s candor here undercuts revisionist narratives; he even noted in 2009 that he might have sought a written non-expansion clause if he’d foreseen the USSR’s collapse, but hindsight doesn’t retroactively create a promise.
6. Russian Leaders After Gorbachev Accepted NATO Enlargement
Post-USSR, Russia’s first president, Boris Yeltsin, not only tolerated but privately endorsed early enlargement steps, viewing NATO as a stabilizing force during Russia’s democratic transition.
In September 1993, Yeltsin told Polish President Lech Wałęsa that “the Russian Government had no objection to Poland and the Czech Republic joining the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.”
By January 1994, during a Moscow summit with U.S. President Bill Clinton, Yeltsin went further: “Russia has to be the first country to join NATO. Then the others from Central and Eastern Europe can come in.” He proposed a “cartel” of major powers (U.S., Russia, etc.) to guide it gradually.
Yeltsin’s public rhetoric toughened by mid-1990s amid domestic backlash, but actions spoke louder: Russia joined NATO’s Partnership for Peace in 1994 (a bridge to cooperation), and in 1997, Yeltsin signed the NATO-Russia Founding Act—a landmark accord recognizing NATO’s right to enlarge while establishing a joint council for consultation. He called it a “forced step” privately due to politics but praised it publicly as building “a more stable, secure, and undivided Europe.” Even Yevgeny Primakov (Yeltsin’s foreign minister) negotiated it as a pragmatic deal, not a capitulation. This acceptance continued under Vladimir Putin initially—he attended the 2001 NATO-Russia summit and floated Russian membership talks until 2004. The shift to confrontation came later, tied more to domestic nationalism and events like the 2004 “Orange Revolution” in Ukraine than a 1990 “betrayal.”
In short, the 1990 exchange was a diplomatic olive branch for Germany’s sake, not a forever veto on Europe’s security choices. NATO’s growth responded to Eastern Europe’s pleas for protection after decades of Soviet domination—Russia’s early leaders knew and accommodated that. If the invasion narrative hinges on this as casus belli, it overlooks how those same countries (like Ukraine, meaning “borderland”) have agency in their fates, shaped by history’s invasions from *all* directions.
Happy to dive deeper on any point!
“Remember?”
I was asked not to repeat a phrase. But, more importantly do you recognize the discussion on thread regarding opposing views of NATO?
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4342883/posts?page=15#15
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4342883/posts?page=20#20
PLEASE NOTE: No arguments. No name-calling. No insults.
No contention. Just the expression on thread of differing opinions.
Also,
Comment #31: https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4342883/posts?page=27#27
shows research on both Jake Broe, a United States Air Force veteran who served as a Nuclear and Missile Operations Officer (13N) & RFU News currently available in 20 languages to provide accurate reporting.
Both sites are recognized as trusted sources for many individuals seeking reliable information about the invasion of Ukraine.
NOTE: I honor this effort to research sources as exceptional. Both these sources give favorable evidence on the current Ukraine situation rather than support the invasion by Putin.
And, links to Gorbachev’s interview
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/did-nato-promise-not-to-enlarge-gorbachev-says-no/
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/115204.htm
https://www.golosameriki.com/a/nato-expansion-history/6437322.html
https://globalaffairs.ru/articles/rossiya-nato-obeshhat-ne-znachit/
https://inosmi.ru/20180119/241229595.html
“While the document does capture a notable exchange between U.S. Secretary of State James Baker and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, it doesn’t support the idea of a binding “promise” against all future NATO expansion. Instead, it reflects a narrow, hypothetical discussion tied to German reunification amid the Cold War’s end.”
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/4342883/posts?page=36#36
I appreciate your comment very much.
Thank you.
Also the name Ukraine , while it derives from a Slavic root , is NOT exclusively “Russian”. There are similar words in Polish and Ukrainian,
Furthermore, the idea that NATO’s overtures to Ukraine directly triggered Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022 is a central narrative in Russian justifications, but the timeline is more complex and spans decades rather than a sudden “teasing” moment. NATO’s “open door” policy for European democracies has been in place since its founding.
Discussions began in the 1990s with Ukraine AND the Russian federation joining NATO’s Partnership for Peace program in 1994, followed by an Intensified Dialogue in 2005.
The key “teasing” often cited is the 2008 Bucharest Summit, where NATO declared that Ukraine (and Georgia) “will become members” someday, though without a timeline or Membership Action Plan (MAP).
German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were vocal about rejecting Georgia and Ukraine’s request for fear of provoking Putin and merkel emphasized that NATO expansion could cross Russia’s “red lines,
What was the result if giving in to Russia? Was Russian happy?
No, The summit’s outcome is widely seen as emboldening Russia. Just four months later, in August 2008, Russia invaded Georgia following escalating tensions in South Ossetia, occupying about 20% of its territory and recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia as independent.
By 2021-2022, Ukraine was pushing harder for membership amid escalating Russian troop buildups, but NATO remained non-committal—no invitation was extended.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.