Russian Tanks Cross Border Into Ukraine

Why would it suddenly not conform? Based on their history, they would love to accuse Russia of rolling in the tanks, as would many other countries.

Turner is a propagandist aka spreader of fake news, so most people who think on their own question claims coming from sources with such bad reputation. Some others (like you) just believe whatever they say.

 

You have two links in your original post. The first from a questionable source, the second that uses the first as it's source.
You seem to be very judgemental and accusatory. Maybe you should reflect upon your own attitudes and sources.
Unless you just like theories and "alternative facts".
Maybe a cute little judgemental poem would help! Don't forget a gif to go with it!

 

And what are the MSM?

 

Whether or not you want to admit it, they are far more reliable sources than the ones you rely on (RT, Gatewaypundit, Breitbart, Hal Turner, etc). Are some of MSM biased? Yes, but for the most part they don't push stories which are 100% fake, conspiracy and propaganda. FOX is borderline, because they do support conspiracy theories.

Me, I take everything with a grain of salt. I do not watch CNN, etc unless there is actual big news happening because they cover live events fairly well.

 

If I recall the conspiracy theories like Russiagate were covered au nauseum by our MSM propaganda networks. According to Dr. Craig Paul Roberts who was an economic advisor to Pres. Reagan, Russiagate was meant to destroy Trump's presidency because he wanted to restore relations with Russia to avoid a nuclear war. The DC war party made sure it wouldn't happen so the anti Putin/Russia propaganda and lies were non ending. Here's one example of 100% fake news about Russia.

Do you recall the story in the media's about Russia bombing 6 Syrian hospitals so they could cover up Washington's own complicity in bombing a Doctor's Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan? Well the video below is proof that every single one of the MSM lies.



Now how about showing me proof that the Conservative news sites that you obviously distrust are lying?

 

Don't worry your pretty head about it, the major news outlets have now gotten whiff of it and are heading to Donbas. Of course they'll give their (government's) spin, but that's besides the point.

So you noticed my poem, how about this one?

HUBRIS​

Take that you fools of misery.
For we as gods of lofty see,
who practice ancient pagan rites
to fuel our base and flagrant life.

Are unlike you - such lowly fools
who follow banal moral rules.
We have our own within our stead
of hubris and of bloated head. - Jeannette


​

 

As they should have. People went to prison for it, and Trump was impeached for it.

Heck, they have pushed doctored pictures as an attempt to sell political view points. It doesnt get more blatant than that. Then we have people like Glenn Beck, Lou Dobbs, who worked there pushing fake news. The fact that you admit it that its "conservative source" flat out admits that its biased.

 

First off, thanks for the compliment!
And I like this poem!
It fits "Hubris" to a tee!
Here's a link to a song about a young person turning 30 and looking at their life with disappointment at themselves. Like your poem, the title fits the song. Hope you enjoy it!

 

First of all, how can Russia absorb Georgia, when it's already controlled by the US, and also why would they want to absorb Georgia when they haven't even absorbed the breakaway states of S. Ossetia and Abhazia?

As for Putin doing whatever he wants, are you sure you're not projecting? We're the world's aggressor nation remember? Well if you don't know , then read the Wolfowitz doctrine. This way when the war starts, you'll know at least whose to blame.

 

Labelling others is not proof of fake news.

IL DUCE MUSSOLINI​

..
It is-a proof-a because-a we said it.

Finito!


​

 

Where do you get the allegation, "When they begin threatening the use of nukes...?" This is pure speculation, on your part, & very poor speculation, at that. Because I've encountered a tendency from you, in the recent past, to wildly assume, of anyone arguing against your position, their motivation must be a love of the other side, I will state that I am no friend of Putin's, nor would I support Russia's intervention in Ukraine any more than in Crimea, or any other, potential, place like the Baltic States. But to immediately assume this leads to nuclear engagement, is a farce. Ukraine is not a member of NATO. Granted, last June they were accepted in NATO's, "Enhanced opportunity partner interoperability program." I don't know that this means that you'll see NATO troops heading into Ukraine. While I, personally, would support such a move, I doubt that NATO is eager for a hot war with Russia, despite how unable that nation's conventional forces, according to your post, are to, "stand against the West." NATO would provide aid, if things are as the OP states, but not troops, I predict.

On the nuclear issue, it would be highly unusual for any but an undisciplined, ungovernable ruler like Kim Jong-un, or Donald Trump, to openly talk of using nukes. The main idea of having them is the fact that other nations KNOW that you have them; they hardly need reminding. It is this knowledge of the possibility, should things be going against them, that Russia might employ its, "battlefield nukes," that acts as a deterrence to interference with their military. (I guess, for your sake, I need to clarify that I am not an advocate for, nor would I approve of, the use of any nuclear weapons, by any actor).

It is erroneous of your post, also, to equate these low-grade nuclear weapons, intended for, "conventional," warfare scenarios, with nuclear missiles of the ICBM-type, or to assume that use of the former makes it a, "no-brainer," or anything resembling an inevitability, that victims will have no trouble escalating to a response with the latter-- which would be a reaction of extreme overkill. That is what is so dangerous, and asymmetrical, about Russia's commanding position with regard to these weapons.

By the way, some international, respected organization-- I believe it was the World Health Organization-- concluded that the U.S. used, "dirty," nuclear weapons
in Iraq, in Fallujah, I think, under George W. Bush, based on the effects on that city's population being in such parallel with the victims of Hiroshima & Nagasaki (particularly, in respect to birth defects), & yet I'm certain that most Americans have not even heard this, & other (especially first world) world leaders are not vociferous, to put it mildly, about bringing up this point. So much for your assertions of this making a nation the pariah of the world, or assuring some high-grade nuclear response.

Time to wake up & smell the coffee. How would you imagine this might credibly be accomplished, militarily?

Our best bet, as far as a long-term plan, is part of the same one which succeeded with the former Soviet Union. That is, the more realistic goal than either conquering, or "nuking," this huge land mass, is to encourage those popular, internal sentiments, opposed to Putin's current system.
In the meantime, economic sanctions are one of our best friends. What would make those weapons, "nuclear," would be if we were to extend Russian sanctions to apply to PUTIN HIMSELF, which is a step that neither Obama, nor Trump (of course), was willing to take.

Since wikipedia is open-source and open for all to contribute, it's hard to see how, what you are contending, would even be possible. It should go without saying, nevertheless, that making such a (bold, amazing, incredible, outlandish, outrageous-- choose your adjective) claim, without providing anything to back it up, is but a meaningless, automatically-dismissible, utterance.

 

I say just let Russia have their way in Europe.

Either that or all those rich socialistic countries in Western Europe are going to have to cancel their free medical care systems to their citizens to pay for more defense spending.

 

Well, then let's just say that the ones who contribute have a mind set more in tune with our propaganda networks. I did notice that the contributions change depending on the changes in our domestic and foreign policies. Then the former ones end up on the back burners, while the newer ones are up front - just like google.

 

ANYONE CAN CONTRIBUTE. YOU can write, or edit, an article right now, as long as you can cite sources to back up your statements. Do you not know how wikipedia works?

 

If true, a failure by the Biden Administration

 

More precisely: the Pootin regime must be abolished.

 

Oh you mean Navalny with his 2% following?


Help me get out of jail!

 

What is Russia's way in Europe? I'm curious? I know they don't need land, and believe in the sovereignty of nations. What they do need is people, but from what I gathered, they have a strict immigration policy - although they are offering free land to Russians and Slavs from other countries that want to retain their heritage and faith.

 

Let's be honest, is this the reason:

 

Russkies don't strive for territory but for power. Ruling the world is an obsession of commie imperialists like Stalin and Putin.

The free world has to fight them.

 

Link to your source, please?

 

You are, no doubt, aware that, at Navalny's protests, he was far from alone. And this was despite the protesters' full awareness of the serious, potential repercussions they were risking. No doubt, also, there are many more with similar sympathies but who are more guarded about making them known.

So, yes, you correctly understood the elements to which I was referring. Putin's purely-political jailing of (& probable, eventually successful, murder of him) is certainly a huge blow to Russia's democratic movement. At the same time, I cannot help but think that Navalny's great courage & patriotism will inspire others to make sacrifices, & take chances, beyond what they have, as of yet, felt comfortable with, or of which, up to now, they have believed themselves capable.

You can smirk at my suggestion all you like. I will only point out that Mr. Putin, quite clearly, does NOT share your cavalier attitude about dissident voices & public sentiment. It was reputedly his OUTRAGE over Hillary Clinton's mere words of support for the democratic movement in Russia, which earned her his unremittant enmity, & led directly to Russia's substantial efforts to interfere in the 2016 American Presidential election. If Putin felt so confident in his immunity from a disgruntled public, Navalny would not, currently, be imprisoned.

 

I came across this post on Moon of Alabama, and found what he said about the dire situation in Syria and what we're doing to those people informative, as well as the situation as it stands in Ukraine:

Turkey needs the money from the (stolen) Syrian Oil. (So far, according to the Syrians, they have lost $92 billion dollars worth from the fields held by the US)

The best arable land (in Syria) has also been stolen and in the rare cases where there has been production (Hasaka) the US has also stolen the wheat from the silos.

The Russian-Syrian object (in bombing them) is clear, if the Syrians can't have the oil then others will not be allowed to use it to support ant-Syrian terrorists.

Turkey may be being used as a diversion for the MSM. While the situation in "Donbas" is presumably waiting for a "false flag",.

****
Meanwhile, nearly OT, the World's MSM (Representatives of 13 national and foreign news outlets, including Radio Liberty * (USA), France-Presse (France) and Reuters (Great Britain), arrived in the Joint Forces Operation (JF) zone) are massing in the territories around Donetsk.

Zelensky is waiting for the "go ahead" from the White House.

The Eisenhower aircraft carrier is in Souda bay in Crete. (And the Rus. sub is nowhere to be seen.) etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This guy has "friends on the ground" and often gets things right.
Here are the Rus naval positions fairly recently (Plus in Black Sea and four transport-landing craft coming down from English Channel.)
https://twitter.com/GeromanAT/status/1373963939730632704/photo/1

Posted by: Stonebird | Mar 22 2021 19:19 utc | 4​

 

https://americanmilitarynews.com/20...e-nukes-if-attacked-with-non-nuclear-weapons/
His conventional military is a ragged-ass shadow of the former Soviet juggernaut. It's true that he IS rebuilding and bringing back a more professional force but he's not there yet. If he - as he seems want to do - stumbles into "writing checks" his troops can't cash and he gets called on it, he hasn't been very subtle about the fact he'd USE nukes. Obviously, I don't have him on speed dial but it hardly takes a military science guru to see the possibilities.
https://fortunascorner.com/2018/03/12/deterring-russian-first-use-low-yield-nuclear-weapons/
Any rational person should be afraid of the new trend of fielding low-yield nukes because it indicates a new potential doctrine of actually USING a nuke against a conventional foe. If you think my assessment is ridiculous, that's your right and your opinion. I also have mine...

 

Do you actually believe that DU is the equivalent of "dirty nukes"?