Ukraine military destroys Russian surveillance plane

Al Arabiya ^ | 2/23/2024 | Reuters

[marcusmaximus]

Ukraine’s military has destroyed a Russian A-50 surveillance aircraft, Air Force Commander Mykola Oleshchuk said on Friday.

“The A-50 with the call sign ‘Bayan’ has flown its last!” Oleshchuk wrote on the Telegram messaging app.

Developing

[JonPreston]

but we still don't know who blew up Vlad's Nord Stream Pipeline to Germany, and it could easily have been Vlad himself -- so, a bridge to Crimea in exchange for Nord Stream Pipeline; sounds like a fair trade to me.

Lieutenant colonel Vindman couldn't have said it better!

[JonPreston]

NYT/Sienna Poll:

Trump 48%
Biden 43%

Poll conducted Feb. 25-28— Jejune the Destroyer (@of_lyon68642) March 2, 2024

[linMcHlp]

BroJoeK,

Reply 168 above, is a blanket HTML source copy of a major portion of Wikipedia's webpage:

Neoconservatism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism

Probably easier to use the Wikipedia webpage.

Dwight Eisenhower was a moderate, who was nudged by Douglas Southall Freeman (a Virginian Southern Democrat, personally a conservative man) to run on the 1952 Republican ticket.

Robert A. Taft was definitely a midwest conservative.

Barry Goldwater was a conservative with a few/sometimes liberal leanings - sort of one side of a coin that had Daniel Patrick Moynihan on the other, as a Democrat with some conservative leanings.

Henry M. Jackson was a Southern Conservative Democrat - you could say, an early day G. W. Bush -type "Republican."

Gerald Ford was a midwest slightly-liberal to more-of-a-moderate and sometimes-conservative Republican.

Ronald Reagan understood, that our worthy American Heritage and History, was essential as a reference with which to explain the principals of our foundations, and what we ought to do. Basically, he could state and support our purpose, liberty, and have many people with him on the same page.

Reagan was a magnet for Reagan Democrats.

[BroJoeK]

Russkiy Mirovich: "Necons come in both political flavors, and some like you are converts."

Only in your own Russkiy Mir delusional fantasy world.
Only as a weapon of pro-Russian propaganda.

Russkiy Mirovich: "Wherever power and money come together (Washington DC) you'll find people forming their beliefs based on how they can best line their own pockets.
I believe they are cowards, but I'll go with Neocon for now."

"Cowards" possibly, "corrupt" maybe, if you can support such claims with actual evidence, and not just blind accusations.

"Neo-cons" refers to specific people and ideas -- anti-Soviet Democrats who for years voted Republican, because traditional conservative Republican views also supported our Western style Allies against Old Soviet and Chi-Com empire building military aggressions.

Today, traditional conservative Republicans have not changed, though my understanding is that the old Democrat "neo-cons" have returned to their socialist homes in the Democrat party.

So Old School conservative Republicans today are the same as we've been since WWII, and largely because you Russkiy Mirovich types are still as dangerous today as you were back in Old Uncle Joe Stalin's time.

If you don't believe me, you can ask Vladimir Vladimirovich himself, or if he's too busy, you can try Vladimir Solovyov or Olga Skabeeva and her husband Yevgeny Popov, on Russia's 60 minutes TV show.
I'm sure they'll explain it all to you, just as I've reported here.

[JonPreston]

but we still don't know who blew up Vlad's Nord Stream Pipeline to Germany, and it could easily have been Vlad himself -- so, a bridge to Crimea in exchange for Nord Stream Pipeline; sounds like a fair trade to me.

This is an interesting sentence, even for a Neocon.

In it you say that altho we don't know who blew up Nord Stream, Germany blowing up the bridge to Crimea is a "fair trade"

Thank you for the NATO blood dance.

[BroJoeK]

Russkiy Mirovich: "Lieutenant colonel Vindman couldn't have said it better!"

I do know of an old KGB LtCol Vladimir Vladimirovich Invader, but your buddy Vindman, not so much.

So answer my question -- if Vlad the Invader blew up that Nord Stream pipeline to Germany, would it be a fair exchange for Germans to blow up Vlad's bridge to Crimea?

If not, why not, in your opinion, humble or otherwise?

Nord Stream Pipeline versus Kersh Bridge to Crimea??

[JonPreston]

but we still don't know who blew up Vlad's Nord Stream Pipeline to Germany, and it could easily have been Vlad himself -- so, a bridge to Crimea in exchange for Nord Stream Pipeline; sounds like a fair trade to me.

if you "don't know who blew up Vlad's Nord Stream Pipeline to Germany" how is blowing up a bridge to Crimea a fair trade?

[BroJoeK]

linMcHlp: "above, is a blanket HTML source copy of a major portion of Wikipedia's webpage:"

Then it's a piece of technological wizardry that I don't understand, implying our FRiend, Russkiy Mirovich, has technical training beyond my level of education.
I wonder if they teach how to do that at Russian propaganda school?

linMcHlp: "Dwight Eisenhower was a moderate..."

Every one of those old photos shows a traditional conservative Republican, with some of them noted as famous conservatives, including Howard Taft in 1952, Barry Goldwater in 1964, Ronald Reagan in 1980, Newt Gingrich in 1994 and Donald Trump in 2016.

They were not "neo-cons", regardless of how often our Russkiy Mirovich propagandists claim otherwise.

[JonPreston]

traditional conservative Republican is code for GOPe

[JonPreston]

Who saw this one coming??

[MeganC]

You’re presenting facts when the Putinistas use the term “neo-con” as an epithet with the intention of intimidating or shaming the recipient into silence.

The best response is to carry on.

[Darksheare]

The US debt goes up by 1 trillion every 100 days.
We are paying pension for other countries, border security for other countries, seeing to the running of government in other countries.
Yet here in America such is ignored and people back continuing to pay foreign pensions, border security, governance and scream that it’s a conservative position to do so.

[BroJoeK]

Russkiy Mirovich: "you say that altho we don't know who blew up Nord Stream, Germany blowing up the bridge to Crimea is a "fair trade"

Thank you for the NATO blood dance."

Naw, contrary to your suggestion here, I don't think Russkiy Mir/world is stupid, I think you guys are fully capable of grasping the concept of a hypothetical, which should have been obvious.

So, to repeat my hypothetical, we don't know:

1. If Vlad the Invader blew up his own Nord Stream pipelines.

2. If Germany intends to destroy Vlad's bridge to Crimea.

Therefore, I ask you yet again, Russkiy Mirovich, if hypothetically, both of those are true, is it a fair trade, and if not, why not?
What say you?

[JonPreston]

is it a fair trade, and if not, why not?

Of course not you silly Neocon pig. It's not our country, it's not our war. Please focus on our border; Americans are dying because of your gaze is fixed on foreign military intervention rather our domestic policies.

[BroJoeK]

Russkiy Mirovich: "traditional conservative Republican is code for GOPe"

Naw, the term "GOPe" was coined in the 2016 presidential election to refer to anti-Trump "establishment" types like Jeb Bush or John Kasich.
GOPe has also referred to:

1. John McCain
2. Mitch McConnel
3. Paul Ryan
4. Mitt Romney

What these names share in common is political opposition to Donald Trump.
At no time did Donald Trump ever use such a label on somebody who never opposed Trump, and that certainly includes historical conservative Republican figures like Howard Taft, Dwight Eisenhower, Barry Goldwater or Ronald Reagan.
Newt Gingrich is an interesting case and early supporter of Donald Trump.
Gingrich might have a lot to say about just who, exactly, is or is not, "GOPe".

GOPe -- all "establishment" Republicans who opposed Donald Trump since 2016.
Some of these people are also considered "Never Trumpers":

Bottom line is that Donald Trump does not mock or otherwise abuse people who support him, and that included Mitch McConnell while McConnell was doing Trump's heavy lifting of conservative US Supreme Court nominees.

[BroJoeK]

JohPreston: "Who saw this one coming??"

Trump has been leading Biden in the polls for many months now.
For over a year, many analysts have predicted Trump's nomination and election in November.
So, as of today, I expect Donald Trump to be our next president, barring some major unforeseen events.

This map represents my best guess on how the election will go in November.
I should also note that last night Trump spoke to a huge crowd in Virginia and said directly that he intends to win Virginia in November and that would mean a blow-out landslide beyond anything seen in recent years.

[JonPreston]

When you lose Musk and Twitter, the propaganda game becomes tough

[BroJoeK]

Darksheare: "The US debt goes up by 1 trillion every 100 days."

And that is the fault of Democrats and cannot be corrected until Democrats are removed from power in Washington, DC.
Nothing we do, or don't do, with Ukraine will effect or change that.

So, let me ask you, do you know anything about numbers?
Do you understand the differences between millions and billions and trillions?
Do you realize that your $1 trillion in deficit every 100 days averages to $300 billion per month?
Do you grasp that of that $300 billion, less than $5 billion was all aid to Ukraine?
Do you see the difference between $5 billion and $300 billion?

And yet... and yet... it's the $5 billion for Ukraine which drives you berserk with anxiety and anger, while the other $300 billion per month has no effect on you one way or another.

Why is that?

Darksheare: "Yet here in America such is ignored and people back continuing to pay foreign pensions, border security, governance and scream that it’s a conservative position to do so."

The $5 billion per month to Ukraine is conservative because it's constitutional, it's lawful and for legitimate national defense.
The rest of your $300 billion in deficit per month is going for insane Democrat vote-buying schemes that are none of those things -- not constitutional and so not legitimately even lawful.
But that money doesn't concern you here.
It's only the $5 billion for Ukraine which drives you nuts with anger and so I ask you again,

Why is that?

[BroJoeK]

Russkiy Mirovich: "Of course not you silly Neocon pig.
It's not our country, it's not our war.
Please focus on our border; Americans are dying because of your gaze is fixed on foreign military intervention rather our domestic policies."

So, faced with a serious question, you've responded with nonsense, why am I not surprised?

First, by your "of course not", you are responding to my hypothetical: you say, from the Russkiy Mir perspective, it's perfectly OK if Vlad the Invader blew up his own Nord Stream pipelines to Germany, but it's not OK if Germany hypothetically blows up Vlad's Kersh bridge to Crimea, right?

So, then yours is the same bezumny logic which tells us that Vlad the Invader's "special military operations" against Ukraine are legitimate, but Ukrainian resistance is not.

On your second point, "not our war" -- what history proves beyond all doubt is that little Hitlers have to be stopped while they are still little because every victory for them only whets their appetites for more conquest and makes defeating them the next time all the more difficult.

Finally, to correct your now Russkiy Bezumny Mir logic regarding "Americans are dying" -- the truth is that Americans are dying for one reason, and one reason only: because Democrats rule over Washington, DC.
Americans will not stop dying until Democrats are removed from power, period, and that has nothing whatever to do with the US helping Ukrainians defend themselves.

Of course, logical or not, from the Russkiy Bezumny Mir perspective, whatever words can help you guys to defeat Ukrainians, that's the only thing which really matters, right?

Avdiivka, Ukraine -- Rio Grande River, Texas:

"bezumny" is Russian for "insane".

[BroJoeK]

Russkiy Mirovich: "When you lose Musk and Twitter, the propaganda game becomes tough"

I think Musk's operations are now supporting Russia in Crimea, if not elsewhere.

The entire Russian propaganda lie about NATO expansion is easily exposed, once you realize that for well over 10 years, beginning in the early 1990s, Russia itself was partnered with NATO and on a path toward NATO membership.
There was no Russian opposition to NATO because Russia wanted to join NATO.

1. In 1992, Russia became a NATO partner, first step towards NATO membership.

2. In 1994 Russia signed the Budapest Memorandum with Ukraine, the US and UK, guaranteeing Ukraine's sovereignty in exchange for Ukraine turning over its nukes to Russia.

3. Well into the early 2000s, friendly NATO-Russia relations continued under Vlad the Invader, who discussed NATO membership with western leaders like US Pres. Clinton and NATO Secretary General George Robertson.

4. In 2004, at their requests NATO admitted Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia, without opposition from Vlad the Invader.

5. NATO-Russia relations remained entirely friendly -- or at least not hostile -- for several years afterwards, until 2008, when Vlad Invaded Georgia, and suddenly the West woke up to the fact that Russia was becoming increasingly dangerous.

6. Vlad's 2008 invasion of Georgia caused the first serious suggestion that Georgia and Ukraine should join NATO, by US Pres. GW Bush, though it went nowhere and was still opposed by the majority of Ukrainians at that time.

7. 2008 is also the first time Vlad the Invader began warning against NATO's expansion.
   Around 2008 was also the first time I saw any suggestions that NATO had somehow become "obsolete" and should be disbanded.
   So, Vlad's Russkiy Mir repeaters were as active in 2008 as you guys are today, it seems.

Notice that Russia is even now still shown as a NATO partner.
Had Vlad joined NATO, he would have made it literally impossible for NATO to threaten or invade Russia.
So, Vlad the Invader's decisions to become NATO's enemy were strictly his own, not NATO's.