Posted on 11/11/2022 11:22:38 PM PST by TigerLikesRoosterNew
867V309 : an interesting serial number.
—
That’s the number of the last license plate he made while on ‘vacation’.
“An estimated 40% of the weapons sent to the Ukraine have already been resold to OTHER enemies, including ISIS.”
This assertion above is completely unsupported.
Biden and co were actually paid off, in the known cases, by Russian or Russian-aligned entities (Burisima was run by an ally of the Russian puppet Yanukovych, and the other payoff in the Senate report was by the wife of themayor of Moscow), and the Chinese of course. And others. Ukraine is in no way the hub of political payoffs to US politicians.
Hilary Clinton in her case got payoffs from around the world, a great deal of it from Russian oligarchs.
There is vastly more money out there looking to buy American politicos than is available in Ukraine.
“Biden”, as I said, is doing as he’s told.
Do you think that guy can even function on his own? He has to be told to go to the potty. Ron Klain has never had a policy idea in his head.
As I have told you several times now there is no power in Biden, and the real money isn’t in Ukraine. What makes the world go round? Money. Where is it? In the US. That is absolutely provable.
The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is a United States–based think tank founded in 2007 by Kimberly Kagan, providing research and analysis regarding issues of defense and foreign affairs. It has produced reports on the Syrian War, the War in Afghanistan, and the Iraq War, "focusing on military operations, enemy threats, and political trends in diverse conflict zones". It currently publishes daily reports on the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine.
ISW was founded in response to the stagnation of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, with core funding provided by a group of defense contractors. According to a mission statement on its website, ISW aims to provide "real-time, government-independent, and open-source analysis of ongoing military operations and insurgent attacks". ISW currently operates as a nonprofit organization, supported in part by contributions from defense contractors including General Dynamics, DynCorp, and previously, Raytheon. It is headquartered in Washington, D.C.
Now there's an outfit that can be trusted to give an honest take on what is happening in Ukraine. /sarcasm
The following from Source #2:
One of the first families within the neocon/liberal interventionist firmament is the Kagans, Robert and Frederick. Frederick is a Senior Fellow at the neocon American Enterprise Institute and his wife Kimberly heads the bizarrely named Institute for the Study of War. Victoria Nuland, wife of Robert, is currently the Senior Counselor at the Albright Stonebridge Group and a Nonresident Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institution. That means that Victoria aligns primarily as a liberal interventionist, as does her husband, who is also at Brookings. She is regarded as a protégé of Hillary Clinton and currently works with former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright, who once declared that killing 500,000 Iraqi children using sanctions was “worth it.” Nuland also has significant neocon connections through her having been a member of the staff assembled by Dick Cheney.
Nuland, many will recall, was the driving force behind efforts to destabilize the Ukrainian government of President Viktor Yanukovych in 2013-2014. Yanukovych, an admittedly corrupt autocrat, nevertheless became Prime Minister after a free election. Nuland, who was the Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs at the State Department, provided open support to the Maidan Square demonstrators opposed to Yanukovych’s government, to include media friendly appearances passing out cookies on the square to encourage the protesters.
Nuland openly sought regime change for Ukraine by brazenly supporting government opponents in spite of the fact that Washington and Kiev had ostensibly friendly relations. It is hard to imagine that any U.S. administration would tolerate a similar attempt by a foreign nation to interfere in U.S. domestic politics, particularly if it were backed by a $5 billion budget, but Washington has long believed in a global double standard for evaluating its own behavior.
Nuland is most famous for her foul language when referring to the potential European role in managing the unrest that she and the National Endowment for Democracy had helped create in Ukraine. For Nuland, the replacement of the government in Kiev was only the prelude to a sharp break and escalating conflict with the real enemy, Moscow, over Russia’s attempts to protect its own interests in Ukraine, most particularly in Crimea.
And make no mistake about Nuland’s broader intention at that time to expand the conflict and directly confront Russia. In Senate testimony she cited how the administration was “providing support to other frontline states like Moldova and Georgia.” Her use of the word “frontline” is suggestive.
Victoria Nuland was playing with fire. Russia, as the only nation with the military capability to destroy the U.S., was and is not a sideshow like Saddam Hussein’s Iraq or the Taliban’s Afghanistan. Backing Moscow into a corner with no way out by using threats and sanctions is not good policy. Washington has many excellent reasons to maintain a stable relationship with Moscow, including counter-terrorism efforts, and little to gain from moving in the opposite direction. Russia is not about to reconstitute the Warsaw Pact and there is no compelling reason to return to a Cold War footing by either arming Ukraine or permitting it to join the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Victoria Nuland has just written a long article for July/August issue of Foreign Affairs magazine on the proper way for the United States manage what she sees as the Russian “threat.” It is entitled “How a Confident America Should Deal With Russia.” Foreign Affairs, it should be observed, is an establishment house organ produced by the Council on Foreign Relations which provides a comfortable perch for both neocons and liberal interventionists.
Nuland’s view is that the United States lost confidence in its own “ability to change the game” against Vladimir Putin, who has been able to play “a weak hand well because the United States and its allies have let him, allowing Russia to violate arms control treaties, international law, the sovereignty of its neighbors, and the integrity of elections in the United States and Europe… Washington and its allies have forgotten the statecraft that won the Cold War and continued to yield results for many years after. That strategy required consistent U.S. leadership at the presidential level, unity with democratic allies and partners, and a shared resolve to deter and roll back dangerous behavior by the Kremlin. It also included incentives for Moscow to cooperate and, at times, direct appeals to the Russian people about the benefits of a better relationship. Yet that approach has fallen into disuse, even as Russia’s threat to the liberal world has grown.”
What Nuland writes would make perfect sense if one were to share her perception of Russia as a rogue state threatening the “liberal world.” She sees Russian rearmament under Putin as a threat even though it was dwarfed by the spending of NATO and the U.S. She shares her fear that Putin might seek “…reestablishing a Russian sphere of influence in eastern Europe and from vetoing the security arrangements of his neighbors. Here, a chasm soon opened between liberal democracies and the still very Soviet man leading Russia, especially on the subject of NATO enlargement. No matter how hard Washington and its allies tried to persuade Moscow that NATO was a purely defensive alliance that posed no threat to Russia, it continued to serve Putin’s agenda to see Europe in zero-sum terms.”
Nuland’s view of NATO enlargement is so wide of the mark that it borders on being a fantasy. Of course, Russia would consider a military alliance on its doorstep to be a threat, particularly as a U.S. Administration had provided assurances that expansion would not take place. She goes on to suggest utter nonsense, that Putin’s great fear over the NATO expansion derives from his having “…always understood that a belt of increasingly democratic, prosperous states around Russia would pose a direct challenge to his leadership model and risk re-infecting his own people with democratic aspirations.”
Nuland goes on and on in a similar vein, but her central theme is that Russia must be confronted to deter Vladimir Putin, a man that she clearly hates and depicts as if he were a comic book version of evil. Some of her analysis is ridiculous, as “Russian troops regularly test the few U.S. forces left in Syria to try to gain access to the country’s oil fields and smuggling routes. If these U.S. troops left, nothing would prevent Moscow and Tehran from financing their operations with Syrian oil or smuggled drugs and weapons.”
Like most zealots, Nuland is notably lacking in any sense of self-criticism. She conspired to overthrow a legitimately elected democratic government in Ukraine because it was considered too friendly to Russia. She accuses the Kremlin of having “seized” Crimea, but fails to see the heavy footprint of the U.S. military in Afghanistan and Iraq and as a regional enabler of Israeli and Saudi war crimes. One wonders if she is aware that Russia, which she sees as expansionistic, has only one overseas military base while the United States has more than a thousand.
Nuland clearly chooses not to notice the White House’s threats against countries that do not toe the American line, most recently Iran and Venezuela, but increasingly also China on top of perennial enemy Russia. None of those nations threaten the United States and all the kinetic activity and warnings are forthcoming from a gentleman named Mike Pompeo, speaking from Washington, not from “undemocratic” leaders in the Kremlin, Tehran, Caracas or Beijing.
Victoria Nuland recommends that “The challenge for the United States in 2021 will be to lead the democracies of the world in crafting a more effective approach to Russia—one that builds on their strengths and puts stress on Putin where he is vulnerable, including among his own citizens.” Interestingly, that might be regarded as seeking to interfere in the workings of a foreign government, reminiscent of the phony case made against Russia in 2016. And it is precisely what Nuland did in fact do in Ukraine.
The same sarcasm applies here as well, regarding a trustworthy source for true information. Both are well regarded members of the Uniparty controlling this country and her demise.
Sources:
That’s from an 80’s hit song by Tommy Tutone called 867-5309/Jenny.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WTdTwcmxyo
It’s a pretty clever username, actually.
I can't believe you two mental giants haven't figured out 867(5)(V)309.
I am reading the comments by our Russian friends complaint about your post.
None of them seem to be suggesting the images aren’t real. (You know they don’t actually read the posts, so pictures are good.)
My three year old grand daughter gets really pissed off when she doesn’t get her way. These posts calling you a troll remind me of her absurd outbursts. I know she will grow out of it. I am pretty sure these posters will not.
I came here to read the latest news about the war between Russia and Ukraine.
I did not get it.
I got plenty of troll comments from both sides, and discourses on the history of the Russian Empire, Kievan Rus, and politics... On whether certain people are a nation or not, on psychology, etc., etc.
Very little about the actual war and what will happen next, and facts to support or oppose such.
ISW is pure propaganda but i enjoyed the pics
As I noted earlier, the West is heavily invested in the belief that winning the information war will translate into battlefield success for Ukraine. Yet, we have seen how the “success” of the U.S. information wars in Iraq, Afghanistan and Syria have turned out. Money pits that have swallowed trillions of U.S. tax payer dollars with no actual success on the ground, where it counts.
Both of these cataclysmic wars — the Civil War and World War II — are relevant to the carnage unfolding in Ukraine. The facts are very simple:
Fact one — Ukraine’s economy is in tatters and there is no viable path to restore what it was on February 24, 2022.
Fact two — Ukraine is totally dependent on Western aid to keep it army in the field.
Fact three — Ukraine does not have a viable air force and cannot provide close air support to its front line troops. This means any Ukrainian advance on the ground is dependent on the limited armor and artillery units still intact.
Fact four — Ukraine’s ability to produce electricity and power is being steadily degraded and there is no short-term solution to keep the lights on.
Fact five — Russia has not committed its front line forces and high tech weaponry to the fight.
Fact six — Russia’s economy is strong despite Western efforts to sunder it.
Fact seven — Russia is economically self-sufficient. It does not need foreign exports to sustain its industrial base but the world does need critical products and minerals that only Russia produces.
Fact eight — Russian factories are operating 24/7, producing essential military equipment and technology to keep its forces in the fight.
Fact nine — Russia can mobilize and train new troops on its own territory without fear of attack from Ukraine. Ukraine cannot.
The United States and NATO are deluded. They are wielding power like the mean girls in high school, i.e. they are shunning Putin and won’t let him sit at their lunch table. They remain convinced that will crush him. What they did not count on is that Putin is building his own cafeteria and will eat the food he wants and a table he controls. In fact, many of the countries in Europe need essential resources that Russia supplies. It is just a matter of time before those girls try to get a seat at Putin’s table.
It is true that Russia relinquished, at least for now, the portion of Kherson that sits to the west of the Dnieper River. But it controls the rest of Kherson to the east of the river. If Ukraine wants Crimea it will have to cross the Dnieper and fight its way to Crimea. Ukraine does not have the military resources to do that; even with the help of the United States and NATO.
It’s weird.
Blackouts could affect civilians in the city not frontline troops. It is ludicrous to claim that Russia has not fielded regular troops. They did but have been ineffective. Their performance is reportedly worse than Wagner mercenaries. Even Russians reportedly agree with it. Their heavy reliance on Iranian drones suggests that they are indeed low on high tech weaponry. Why do they go to Iran and bring their drones if they have enough stock of advanced missiles in Russia?
Russian economy has been intertwined with Western economy and there had been large presence of Western companies which helped Russian industry. Even Russian oil and gas industry was aided by Western oil companies to extract oil and gas from their oil fields.
Russia could make their industry more self-sufficient but at the expense of significantly degrading the quality of its products. If they lose revenue from the export of oil and gas, they lose much of export revenue. In addition, their arms export, another source of Russian export revenue, is essentially gone. To claim that these developments have little effect on Russian industry is a nonsense. Media did report that Russian has some materials the Western countries relied on. Would this cause severe disruption on the Western industry? So far, its impact seems very limited. How about critical materials which can be only produced by the West whose supply is completely lost due to sanction?
Russian factories can produce their weapons 24/7 all they want but their capacity is no match for the combined might of European and US industrial capacity. In WW2, this industrial machine was on the side of Soviet Union. Now it is on the Ukrainian side. This is really a serious problem which can turn the tide of war in the prolonged war they are into.
You forget that Ukrainian troops are trained in NATO countries. In UK, Poland, and Spain to name a few. Can Russian military hit those countries with their weapons and risk full NATO involvement? Furthermore, it seems that they are better trained with better weapons.
Lastly, Ukrainians continue to attack key supply and logistics infrastructure. They took over key supply hubs, cutting supply lines and blowing up supply depots. Whatever supply Russia has, it would become increasingly difficult to bring them to frontline Russian troops. Russia is at great disadvantage in terms of logistics and intelligence, two critical areas which are essential for prosecuting a prolonged war.
As for moving into the southern part of Kherson across the river, many reports suggest that Ukrainians are planning to attack the province to the east of Kherson and move westward to reach southern part of Kherson, skipping river-crossing.
So far their analysis matches battlefield developments. So I have no reason to believe that it is a pure propaganda.
Jenny, Jenny, who can you turn to…?
As for good daily summary of war, you could watch “Reporting from Ukraine”, https://www.youtube.com/c/ReportingfromUkraine/videos , at YouTube. It features short 5-minute presentations of daily summary and analysis. It is succinct and informative. It does not require military experience to understand it.
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.