Posted on 03/05/2022 9:42:48 PM PST by sushiman
Politicians and members of the media have nearly universally expressed shock and dismay at Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, but their incredulity is belied by the fact that numerous Russia experts and historians have been predicting these events practically since the fall of the Berlin Wall,
Pootin stooge talking.
He’s absolutely right. Many top experts said Russia would not accept a NATO county mon their border, that they would go to war first.
Putin himself said it.
Biden and the Obama band together just decided they knew better. They could have prevented it.
Newsflash: Ukraine will either end up a neutral country, or part of Russia. But never NATO. And the window for being neutral is pretty much closed.
People keep talking about Zelensky as a Soros/Nazi/US stooge. He stayed behind, didn’t he? That’s more than Putin’s puppet, Yanukovich, was able to manage before scooting off to Moscow.
What kind of crafty 4d-chess game are these Bandera-ites able of playing? They fight for a government under the leadership of a guy who doesn’t even speak Ukrainian as his native language, and is an ethnic Jew? Is that from some secret neo-fascist reverse-psychology handbook? Did Hitler similarly appoint some guys named Lenny Shapiro and Isaac Bromwitz to top positions of the Third Reich and somehow we all forgot about it?
“Pootin stooge talking.”
Is that you, Adam Schiff?
2016 called, they want their “Putin stooge” hoax back.
Zactly...Putin puffers will fall for this...they believe EVERTHING Putin says.
Very unoriginal response. Nor convincing.
Did you watch the video? Or just came to say that ?
“And the window for being neutral is pretty much closed.”
—
The only probable option for Z to hopefully have something resembling a gig and country left would be to heed some old advice:
“Suppose a king is about to go to war against another king. Won’t he first sit down and consider whether he is able with ten thousand men to oppose the one coming against him with twenty thousand? If he is not able, he will send a delegation while the other is still a long way off and will ask for terms of peace.”
This isn’t a right or wrong deal.
This isn’t black or white.
This is a “I can & you can’t operation.”
The stronger nation with the most determination will win.
Anybody know the point spread in Las Vegas?
Where’s the smart money going?
Expect more of that. The logical dissonance of their alignment with the left is making them even more feral.
On the bright side, they are exposed.
“experts”
Z can replace Kimmel, Fallon, or Colbert on late night comedy, plus get a sun tan.
He’d be an improvement.
Those dudes aren’t funny.
Bookmark
[This isn’t a right or wrong deal.
This isn’t black or white.
This is a “I can & you can’t operation.”
The stronger nation with the most determination will win.
Anybody know the point spread in Las Vegas?
Where’s the smart money going?]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Afghan_War
Two years ago, William Burns, Present Director of the CIA wrote his memoir, entitled, “The Back Channel.” In his book, Burns says over and over that Russians of all ideological stripes, not just Putin—loathed and feared NATO expansion. He quotes a memo he wrote while serving as counselor for political affairs at the US embassy in Moscow in 1995. ‘Hostility to early NATO expansion,” it declares, “is almost universally felt across the domestic political spectrum here.” On the question of extending NATO membership to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about the breadth of Russian opposition are even more emphatic. “Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all redlines for the Russian elite (not just Putin),” he wrote in a 2008 memo to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. “In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.”
By taking advantage of Russian weakness, he argues, Washington fueled the nationalist resentment that Putin exploits today. Burns calls the Clinton administration’s decision to expand NATO to include Poland, Hungary, and the Czech Republic “premature at best, and needlessly provocative at worst.” And he describes the appetite for revenge it fostered among many in Moscow during Boris Yeltsin’s final years as Russia’s president. “As Russians stewed in their grievance and sense of disadvantage,” Burns writes, “a gathering storm of ‘stab in the back’ theories slowly swirled, leaving a mark on Russia’s relations with the West that would linger for decades.”
As the Bush administration moved toward opening NATO’s doors to Ukraine, Burns’ warnings about a Russian backlash grew even starker. He told Rice it was “hard to overstate the strategic consequences” of offering NATO membership to Ukraine and predicted that “it will create fertile soil for Russian meddling in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.”
So you are calling the Director of the CIA “a Putin Puffer?”
It gave Putin a pretext, but still only one person is responsible for the death and destruction that is happening now, and that is Vladimir Putin.
I think NATO should have been disbanded following the collapse of the Warsaw Pact. NATO was left with no mission like a ship without a rudder and was captured by globalists to serve their own purpose.
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.