We, the people, want the truth!

In the movie The Right Stuff, flight control in Houston gets a warning that astronaut John Glenn's Mercury capsule has a possible loose heat shield. "What are we going to tell him?" voices an anxious member of flight control.

Astronaut Alan Shepard, who is part of flight control for this first orbital flight, speaks up and says, "He's a pilot. You tell him the condition of his craft." In other words, Alan Shepard says, tell him the truth.

"A wise man is hungry for truth, while the mocker feeds on trash," says the Living Bible translation of Proverbs 15:14.

Why should we be hungry for truth? Most of us, like John Glenn, want to know the reality of our circumstances. When we see things happening around us that we cannot understand, we want to erase our ignorance with accurate information.

In 2022, there are questions hanging over America that remain unresolved, and the journalists who are supposed to bring us the facts refuse to investigate. Even worse, they seem to want to keep the truth from us. Unresolved issues and questions tend to fester and sow doubts. Here are some of the clouds hanging over America in July 2022:

-Where are the twelve missing pen drives from the 7/19/2022 primary election in Baltimore?

-Why do we keep sending money to Ukraine when we are 30 trillion dollars in debt?

-Why are we allowing illegal aliens to flood into this country and rewarding these lawbreakers with social benefits?

-Why are the riots of 2020 uninvestigated, but January 6, 2021 gets primetime coverage?

Some truth: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=03A1vQQRb0k
Scott Ritter - Biden’s Mideast tour & Ukraine (Video on Judging Freedom)

US Military Analyst: West Can’t Afford Ukraine Spending, Will Run Out of Ammo to Send to Kiev
10 hours ago

As Russia continues its special military operation to demilitarize and de-Nazify Ukraine, the West is sending billions of dollars on aid, weapons, and equipment for Kiev.
Scott Ritter, a military analyst and former US Marine Corps intelligence officer, offers his views on the West’s motivation to provide continued financial and military assistance to Ukraine, the reasons why the US and EU are choosing to fuel the hostilities instead of encouraging Kiev to negotiate, and reflects on how long Ukraine’s beneficiaries in the West will be able to afford such expenses.

Sputnik: The European Union on Wednesday moved to pour additional 500 million euros into Ukraine’s military. In a statement on Twitter, EU foreign policy chief Josep Borrell said that EU states remain “focused and steadfast” in their support of Kiev. What goals are the US and EU pursuing by pouring more money into the Ukrainian military?

Scott Ritter: The hope is to transform the conflict that is ongoing in Ukraine as a result of the Russian special military operation into a protracted conflict that can lead to a stalemate that would result in significant Russian costs, both in terms of manpower and military equipment, but also financial costs, and thereby weaken Russia. Ultimately what they are visualizing would be a Ukraine strong enough to evict Russia from its borders.

It’s not possible, this is fantasy in the extreme, but it’s politically inspired fantasy, meaning that the United States and its European allies have invested so much political capital into propping up the Ukrainian military and the Ukrainian government and the Ukrainian economy that even though most sound analysts understand that not only is Ukraine losing the conflict, but they can never win the conflict. Politically, Western politicians cannot divorce themselves from these policies. So in order to maintain a public perception at home of the chance of a Ukrainian victory, they will continue to squander the wealth of their respective nations.

Sputnik: Why are Western states prolonging the hostilities despite the growing discontent of their populations with economic problems?

Scott Ritter: There’s an old saying in the United States that I believe translates into most politics: “when you’re explaining, you’re losing.” And right now, these politicians would have to explain to their constituents why they were wrong about Ukraine, why they were wrong about Russia. And especially here in the United States, we’re dealing with the lead-up to very critical midterm elections. No politician wants to be explaining anything to anybody. They want to be shaping perceptions that build upon past performances. This is all about domestic politics. This has nothing to do with reality.

Sputnik: How dangerous is the decision to provide Ukraine with fighter jets?

Scott Ritter: This is just a fantasy. The people coming up with this apparently are not pilots. They’ve watched, perhaps, one too many Top Gun movies, and they think that you could just take a pilot, put him or her into any airframe, and have that airframe perform viably in combat situations. Any effort to take a Ukrainian pilot and put that Ukrainian pilot into an American or European fighter with minimal training and then have that fighter employed in combat operations in Ukraine against the Russian Air Force would 100% of the time end up with the Western fighter jet being shot down.

I don’t mean to be rude here, but this is a very stupid idea. But we’re talking about politics, not sound policy. So it sounds good for a politician to be telling his or her constituents that we are providing the Ukrainians with the best equipment possible to include the top of the line fighter aircraft. What they really should be saying is we are guaranteeing that every Ukrainian pilot we train will die at the hands of the Russian Air Force, because that’s what the ultimate outcome will be.

The thing about, especially American, generals is that they are political animals. They didn’t get that fourth star necessarily because of their military competence. They got it because they impressed a politician with their political acumen. And so what we have is a general playing politics, a general who is saying what the politicians want to hear. And that’s not what his role is. His role is to provide sound military assessment, military advice to the politicians.
But if an American military officer did that today, they couldn’t agree with anything that the Biden administration or the US Congress was seeking to do in Ukraine, and therefore they would never get promoted. They would never get a good job. I don’t like to denigrate serving military officers, but this is a political decision, not a military decision, even though the man making it wears a military uniform.

Sputnik: Can the West collectively really afford such spending now, at a time of harsh polarization and soaring prices?

Scott Ritter: No, they can’t afford it. And we have some nations that are starting to realize this. The German defense minister, who is very hawkish against Russia, has acknowledged that Germany simply has no more weapons to give and they’re not in a position to build new weapons. They’re worrying about other economic realities. The same holds true with the United States.

At some point time in time, we are going to run out of materiel to give to Ukraine. I read somewhere that with all the HIMARS multiple launch rocket systems we’re providing to Ukraine, we’re also providing Ukraine with one third of the ammunition stockpiles for the HIMARS, meaning that we, the United States, only have two thirds of our ammunition stores available if we had to go to war, which means we will run out of ammunition.

This is insane, literally insane to be sacrificing the national security of the United States or of a European nation so that politicians can look and sound good for the next couple of weeks. But it will not change the equation on the battlefield in Ukraine. The Ukrainian Army is in an impossible situation. They literally cannot recover from the debacle that has befallen them.

The sad thing is that Ukrainian leaders are buying into the fiction provided by the West of if they just get more weapons, they can successfully defend against Russia. This means that more Ukrainian soldiers are going to die, more Russian soldiers are going to die, and tragically, more Ukrainian civilians are going to suffer.

Sputnik: Leaders of the Group of Seven recently pledged to stand with Ukraine “for as long as it takes.” How feasible is this pledge?

Scott Ritter: When the Group of Seven made that, one of the leaders was a guy named Boris Johnson. He’s not the leader anymore. The other guy was a gentleman whose last name was Draghi. He’s not the leader anymore. I think as the summer and the winter come along, more and more of these leaders are going to be removed from office because it’s an unsustainable policy. Politicians have a proclivity for saying things that have no basis in reality. It’s very inexpensive for a politician to say “we are going to support you forever.”

Forever in what sense? Boris Johnson is not supporting them forever – he’s out of power. Draghi is not supporting them forever – he’s out of power. And just about everybody who was on that stage at the G7 meeting will be out of power. Suddenly, we have a whole new definition of what “forever” means. It means “not now, not anymore.”

Some unexpected truth about our new geopolitical reality:
Things we were never told by the media concerning Putin’s trip to Iran.

Why oh why did our Deep State fools have to instigate this conflict with Russia. Trump did everything he could to keep Russia in our orbit and out of the hands of China, et al to the degree he could even in the face of them trying to destroy Trump and Putin. And now the demented mummy (or whoever has been directing him) has gotten us to this point...:-(((

NEZYGAR
Expert opinion. Expert Yulia Yuzik, author of the telegram channel Yuzik-Iranian Power, on the significance of Vladimir Putin’s visit to Iran.

Vladimir Putin’s visit to Iran - the most strategically significant of his entire reign - seems to have borne fruit. But it’s too early to rejoice. There was little ceremony on this trip for Putin: after a short greeting with President Raisi, he went to meet Iran’s de facto head, Ayatollah Khamenei. Most of the negotiations were held behind closed doors.

The spiritual leader (rahbar) paused negotiations on a nuclear deal with the United States, waiting for Putin to arrive to see the final “case from Russia.” This package of proposals was supposed to outweigh the benefits of a deal with the Americans, but until the last moment it was not clear what Putin could offer the pragmatic Khamenei so that he would strategically go into the “Russian” orbit.

Prior to the trip, Putin laid a few cards on the table - he finally launched the North-South corridor, linking Russia with India through Iran. The latter has lobbied for this corridor since the time of Ahmadinejad, but the project has been frozen.

On July 11, it was reported that Russia would buy drones from Iran, and on July 15, Putin signed a law on Iran’s free trade with the Eurasian Economic Union. It was said that Russia would invest $7 billion in the Azadegan field, located on the Iran-Iraq border, and allowing both Iran and the Russian Federation to sell oil as “Iraqi”. All this was not bad, but it was not something that interrupted the American proposal.

And now in Tehran, Putin is seriously raising the stakes in this political casino: on July 19, Gazprom and the National Iranian Oil Company (NIOC) sign a $40 billion memorandum of understanding. Gazprom plans to invest in the Kish, North Pars and South Pars gas fields. The French (Total), Italians (ENI) and Chinese fought hard for the latter. But even the Chinese, with their “deal of the century” for a quarter of a trillion dollars, were not allowed to enter South Pars by the Persians.

Actually, if these plans are destined to come true, we can talk about creating the most powerful gas monopoly in the world under the Russian roof. Not without reason at the Astana summit, under the guise of which the meeting of the heads of Russia, Iran and Turkey took place, was attended by Erdogan.

Formally, he came to resolve issues related to Syria and the Kurds in the north of the country (PKK), which are a serious headache for him. But behind the PKK, smiling and waving, are the Iranian IRGC, or rather, Al-Quds with its network proxy apparatus, and Moscow. So Erdogan will have to reckon with both Tehran and Moscow. Isn’t that why he had a mournful face throughout the summit?

The fact that Putin and Khamenei still agreed on something is also evidenced by the fact that the Iranian leader indirectly supported the actions of the Russian Federation in Ukraine (“if you had not taken the initiative, the other side had unleashed a war on its own initiative”), and through his military General announced his “readiness to export weapons.”

The price of such an alliance - investments, partnerships in oil and gas, Syria and Iraq, arms supplies - is hardly possible without including the S-400 in the bill. For without a Russian nuclear missile shield, Khamenei is hardly ready to make such high stakes against the US and Israel.
Let’s also not forget that Iran’s nuclear program continues outside of the deal, and this is what the Iranian leader sees as the only possible means of sovereignty. Obviously, Khamenei will continue to trade with the West, and the “window of diplomacy” will be open to the last, no matter what. That is, until about the end of the year, he will increase trading with the United States to the maximum and see if the Russian scheme works.

Putin has carte blanche in his hands today, which he can use. “The New World Order” is the headline of the Iranian edition of Mehr today. In it, Putin’s visit is considered precisely in the context of an alternative to Biden’s visit to the Middle East.

The stakes are high, the risks are serious (to the point that Moscow has put everything in Iran on one political force), the game is grandiose, but it is not over yet.

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.