Americans have been trained to hate Putin, and will suffer because of it

[swordfish]

On 2/24/2022 at 10:10 AM, swordfish said:

So everyone is now supposed to act surprised that Vlad has working to re-build the USSR?  Something he has been working towards the past decade or more? 

Primarily, he really didn't want NATO (which the Ukrainians have tried to become aligned with since 1992) to come to Ukraine.  But since the Brussels Summit in June of 2021, it became apparent it was most likely going to happen - hence the build-up and now the invasion. 

I mean, everyone already knew this was inevitable - didn't they?

Russia/Georgia - 2008

Russia/Crimea - 2014

Russia/Ukraine - 2014 (2021 invasion)

SF wonders - Why is it that Russia seems to be more aggressive when a Democrat is in the White House? 

I guess everyone forgets that Ukraine (at one time) was the go to place for corrupt money laundering and even more corrupt business deals for the US and Russia......Until Zelensky became President.....

Russia wants it back.....and so do the US politicians that have benefitted for decades because of it's lawless existence....

[DE]

1 hour ago, swordfish said:

I guess everyone forgets that Ukraine (at one time) was the go to place for corrupt money laundering and even more corrupt business deals for the US and Russia......Until Zelensky became President.....

Russia wants it back.....and so do the US politicians that have benefitted for decades because of it's lawless existence....

10% to the Big Guy.

The Biden Crime Family is guilty as hell.

[swordfish]

Copied:

Hard to swallow reality pill:

A lot of what Russia has claimed against Ukraine in Donbas is true.

Putin has also exaggerated those claims to weaponize propaganda against Ukraine by creating a neo-Nazi boogeyman (Nazis are a very real problem in the Donbas war, but not Ukraine at large).

Ukraine has done the same.

Both sides are dirty as hell in this.

**People who voted for a vegetable instead of an effective leader provided Putin an opportunity to finally reunify Russia, Ukraine, and Little Russia. He took it.

Most of Ukraine is a tolerant and diversified country. Struggling to come out of the darkness of Poroshenko's corruption. They deserve to have independence from Russia but their leaders and the world have failed them.

If a country has traitorous information on you and your family and you are in a powerful position. How would you make sure that evidence NEVER got out and proven?

[DE]

17 hours ago, swordfish said:

Copied:

Hard to swallow reality pill:

A lot of what Russia has claimed against Ukraine in Donbas is true.

Putin has also exaggerated those claims to weaponize propaganda against Ukraine by creating a neo-Nazi boogeyman (Nazis are a very real problem in the Donbas war, but not Ukraine at large).

Ukraine has done the same.

Both sides are dirty as hell in this.

**People who voted for a vegetable instead of an effective leader provided Putin an opportunity to finally reunify Russia, Ukraine, and Little Russia. He took it.

Most of Ukraine is a tolerant and diversified country. Struggling to come out of the darkness of Poroshenko's corruption. They deserve to have independence from Russia but their leaders and the world have failed them.

If a country has traitorous information on you and your family and you are in a powerful position. How would you make sure that evidence NEVER got out and proven?

Burisma

[swordfish]

[swordfish]

As SF sits and contemplates the current situation in Ukraine now 2 weeks in, I'm starting to realize, Zelinsky must have the goods on Putin, and whoever else in the US is or was involved in the ongoing corruption in Ukraine and has let them know (potentially - with my tin foil hat on here) he will release all the information he can on them all if he is killed.......The only reason I could come up with for why Putin hasn't blown him to bits so far......

As I stated before, he should have finished the job he started in 2014 back then instead of relying on Hillary winning the 2016 election and not being a problem for him......

But what do I know......

 

[DE]

21 hours ago, swordfish said:

As SF sits and contemplates the current situation in Ukraine now 2 weeks in, I'm starting to realize, Zelinsky must have the goods on Putin, and whoever else in the US is or was involved in the ongoing corruption in Ukraine and has let them know (potentially - with my tin foil hat on here) he will release all the information he can on them all if he is killed.......The only reason I could come up with for why Putin hasn't blown him to bits so far......

As I stated before, he should have finished the job he started in 2014 back then instead of relying on Hillary winning the 2016 election and not being a problem for him......

But what do I know......

 

Are you seeing the information coming out about US funding that went to Ukraine for bio and nuclear weapons?  

Information is coming out that it was recently "discovered".  Recently means the information was released yesterday.

[swordfish]

23 minutes ago, DE said:

Are you seeing the information coming out about US funding that went to Ukraine for bio and nuclear weapons?  

Information is coming out that it was recently "discovered".  Recently means the information was released yesterday.

Yeah - Nothing to see here......Keep moving along......

There's more to Ukraine than "Putin just wants it back".  Yes he does want it to be part of Mother Russia again, but I also think he doesn't like the fact that he's not in control of the corruption anymore.....

[Muda69]

Facebook allows war posts urging violence against Russian invaders

https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/exclusive-facebook-instagram-temporarily-allow-calls-violence-against-russians-2022-03-10/

Quote

Meta Platforms (FB.O) will allow Facebook and Instagram users in some countries to call for violence against Russians and Russian soldiers in the context of the Ukraine invasion, according to internal emails seen by Reuters on Thursday, in a temporary change to its hate speech policy.

The social media company is also temporarily allowing some posts that call for death to Russian President Vladimir Putin or Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko, according to internal emails to its content moderators.

"As a result of the Russian invasion of Ukraine we have temporarily made allowances for forms of political expression that would normally violate our rules like violent speech such as 'death to the Russian invaders.' We still won't allow credible calls for violence against Russian civilians," a Meta spokesperson said in a statement.

The calls for the leaders' deaths will be allowed unless they contain other targets or have two indicators of credibility, such as the location or method, one email said, in a recent change to the company's rules on violence and incitement.

Citing the Reuters story, Russia's embassy in the United States demanded that Washington stop the "extremist activities" of Meta. read more

"Users of Facebook & Instagram did not give the owners of these platforms the right to determine the criteria of truth and pit nations against each other," the embassy said on Twitter in a message that was also shared by their India office.

The temporary policy changes on calls for violence to Russian soldiers apply to Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Georgia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Russia, Slovakia, and Ukraine, according to one email.

 

In the email recently sent to moderators, Meta highlighted a change in its hate speech policy pertaining both to Russian soldiers and to Russians in the context of the invasion.

"We are issuing a spirit-of-the-policy allowance to allow T1 violent speech that would otherwise be removed under the Hate Speech policy when: (a) targeting Russian soldiers, EXCEPT prisoners of war, or (b) targeting Russians where it's clear that the context is the Russian invasion of Ukraine (e.g., content mentions the invasion, self-defense, etc.)," it said in the email.

"We are doing this because we have observed that in this specific context, 'Russian soldiers' is being used as a proxy for the Russian military. The Hate Speech policy continues to prohibit attacks on Russians," the email stated.

Last week, Russia said it was banning Facebook in the country in response to what it said were restrictions of access to Russian media on the platform. Moscow has cracked down on tech companies, including Twitter (TWTR.N), which said it is restricted in the country, during its invasion of Ukraine, which it calls a "special operation."

Many major social media platforms have announced new content restrictions around the conflict, including blocking Russian state media RT and Sputnik in the European Union, and have demonstrated carve-outs in some of their policies during the war.

Emails also showed that Meta would allow praise of the right-wing Azov battalion, which is normally prohibited, in a change first reported by The Intercept.

The Meta spokesperson previously said the company was "for the time being, making a narrow exception for praise of the Azov Regiment strictly in the context of defending Ukraine, or in their role as part of the Ukraine National Guard."

Violence begets violence.  Nice hypocritical move,  Meta.

 

[swordfish]

https://www.cnn.com/europe/live-news/ukraine-russia-putin-news-03-15-22/h_7a8e1d7f46379d4ab4195a9c21094af7

Russian TV anti-war protester's lawyer still does not know where she is

From CNN’s Paul P. Murphy and Richard Greene

 

This screen grab shows Channel One editor Marina Ovsyannikova protesting on air on March 14. (Russia Channel 1)

 

A lawyer for the Russian TV editor who held up an anti-war sign during a live broadcast on Monday still does not know where she is, he told CNN on Tuesday.

Dmitry Zakhvatov has been trying to locate Channel One editor Marina Ovsyannikova since her protest on Monday, he told CNN.

Zakhvatov confirmed to CNN that Ovsyannikova is the woman seen on air holding the sign and that she is an editor for the channel. 

"Stop the war. Do not believe propaganda they tell you lies here," the sign read, concluding in English: "Russians against war."

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov dismissed the protest as “hooliganism.”

“As far as this lady is concerned, this is hooliganism,” Peskov told reporters on a conference call Tuesday, adding that authorities are already handling her case.

“The channel and those who are in charge are dealing with it,” he added. “It's not an issue on [the Kremlin] agenda.”

Hooliganism is a criminal offense in Russia.

Asked about possible criminal charges against Ovsyannikova, Peskov shied away from the question, referring to the “responsibility” that state TV channels bear.

“There are certain departments that deal with this,” Peskov said. “The live broadcast of any TV channel and especially those who work there hold a special responsibility.”

The Investigative Committee — a top Russian law enforcement agency — launched a pre-investigation check against Ovsyannikova on “public dissemination of deliberately false information about the use of the Russian Armed Forces,” Russian state news agency TASS reported Tuesday, citing an unnamed source.

 

SF is just guessing she may not be found after that stunt......

 

 

 

[Muda69]

Facing Unpleasant Facts: What You aren’t Supposed to say about the War in Ukraine

https://mises.org/wire/facing-unpleasant-facts-what-you-arent-supposed-say-about-war-ukraine-0

Quote

Having been lied into war in Iraq in 2003, the American public swore it had wised up. Sure, it went on to drop the ball by supporting the Libya intervention, itself prefaced by lies, and supported the government’s intervention in the civil war in Syria (or at least didn’t mind it), even though the US sided with the very Sunni extremists it had been fighting a few years before in Iraq. But these were admittedly obscure conflicts, made all the more so by the blatantly biased coverage of events by Western media, which parroted obvious lies about impending massacres and staged chemical weapons attacks.

But in Europe, where the US had extensive military alliance commitments under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the US population should ostensibly have been more informed and less prone to beguiling, it has been disappointing to see the American public once again so easily led down the path to supporting a war that never had to be—never would have been—but for the policies enacted by our government.

And just as with the baseless rush to war with Iraq, which every outlet of mainstream media loyally supported, those who refuse to repeat slogans of “Ukrainian democracy” or “Russian aggression” are denigrated, either as cowards or as apologists for the heinous actions of others, for which they are obviously not responsible. Besides being inaccurate, the latter accusation is particularly perfidious because it effectively makes reasoned dissent impossible.

But by pretending that history started with the Russian invasion of Ukraine, the story is made simple, a clear case of right and wrong. And while it is true that Russian president Vladimir Putin ordered the invasion of Ukraine and so is responsible for the present war, such a Manichean telling of the story does little to further informed policy discussion. Indeed, that is precisely the point: to ignore the decades of declared Russian security interests in the orientation of states directly at its border, as well as to obscure a history of US meddling in Ukraine.

So unless you think context is irrelevant, that recent history is unimportant to understanding current crises, here are four things you aren’t supposed to say about Ukraine but that are absolutely true and that all Americans should be aware of before forming a hasty opinion regarding a deadly serious matter that until a few weeks ago most knew nothing about.

The “Revolution of Dignity” Was a US-Backed Coup

The 2014 ouster of slightly Russian-leaning Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych, who drew his support primarily from the ethnic Russian–dominated eastern parts of the country, was spun by Ukrainian nationalist and Western media as a ”revolution of dignity.” It was in fact, in the words of Western security analyst George Friedman, ”the most blatant coup in history.” In case the obvious nature of events on the ground weren’t enough, this was confirmed by the leaked phone call between then assistant secretary of state Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Pyatt, then the US ambassador to Ukraine, during which they picked their favorites for the new Ukrainian leadership and plotted how to prevent the meddlesome EU from screwing it all up by moving too slowly, potentially allowing Russia a chance to interfere in the obviously illegal ouster of an elected government through a street putsch.

The proximate cause of the coup was Yanukovych’s taking of what was essentially a large Russian bribe to eschew an EU association agreement. In a country ranked 122nd in corruption, literally the most corrupt country in Europe, none of this was a surprise. But what was a surprise was the US move to sweep in and take Kyiv—something US foreign policy insiders publicly bragged about in the immediate aftermath.

There Is a Significant Neo-Nazi Problem in Ukraine

This is something that until a few years ago the mainstream media reported seriously on; of course, that was before they knew they were going to have to try and lie us into another war. Now any mention of what was taken to be an obvious problem just a year ago is decried as “Russian propaganda!”

The empowerment of far right extremists since the 2014 coup, a significant number with openly Neo-Nazi affiliations, is reflected in the dramatic rise in attacks on Jews, feminists, and the LGBTQ and Romany communities. It has further led to the banning of books that question Kyiv’s nationalist propaganda, which itself features the whitewashing of Nazi collaborators.

What are we to think when at the same time that public witch hunts for supposed white nationalists are carried out domestically with something near hysterical zeal, state-of-the-art shoulder-fired antiaircraft and antitank weaponry is shipped in great volumes to extremist white nationalists in Ukraine that would make the top of any of our own domestic terrorist watch lists?

We aren’t supposed to think about it all, at least not critically—just like we aren’t supposed to think critically about anything else.

The Russians Always Objected to NATO Expansion into Ukraine

For example, how about the fact our government always knew the Russians vigorously objected to any NATO involvement in Ukraine but downplayed or dismissed the obvious steps they were taking in that direction—downplayed it to themselves, to the American public, and tried to downplay it to the wider European community. Of course, Germany and France knew better and refused to grant a membership action plan to Ukraine despite Washington’s intense pressure. And though blocked from de jure absorbing Ukraine into the alliance, Washington was taking de facto steps to that effect—conducting joint military exercises in Ukraine at the same time that it was shipping the US-coup-installed government sophisticated heavy weaponry whose only obvious use was against Russia. Since at least 2014, when Putin ordered Russian forces to seize the Crimea to protect the only warm water port of the Russian navy after threats by Kyiv to evict them despite Moscow’s legal lease, Washington has known Putin feels particularly threatened in Ukraine. Even in the years since then, Washington has rejected repeated attempts by Moscow to establish an officially neutral Ukraine, including in the weeks leading up to the invasion.

Biden Could Have Prevented the War

Yes, even at that late date in January 2022—and all it would have taken was agreeing to Putin’s minimum terms: Ukraine could never join NATO, and new missiles could not be deployed in eastern European NATO member states. Outrageous and rightly rejected? Not according to Joe Biden, who claimed NATO membership for Ukraine was not on the table nor a serious priority at any point in the foreseeable future. Taking him at his word, why wouldn’t Biden simply agree to put it on paper and prevent what he himself repeatedly said were imminent Russian plans to invade and destroy Ukraine? What we’re told, and have been told since NATO expansion began, is that “keeping the door open” to alliance membership is a ”sacred principle.”

Perhaps it should be made public exactly how many Ukrainian lives the State Department and the Pentagon reckon this principle to be worth and how such calculations are made.

Conclusion

Really, what this looks like is a tragic combination of the brief 2008 Russo-Georgian War and the decade-long Soviet-Afghan War. In the first instance, US encouragement of actions by Tbilisi directly contrary to Russian interests led directly to a Russian military intervention; in the latter case, the leading US policy maker at the time, Zbigniew Brzezinski, admits precipitating that war on purpose: provoking the USSR into fatally overreaching in an attempt to protect an allied government from being undermined by the US—in this case by funding the proto-Taliban mujahideen in Afghanistan from bases in neighboring Pakistan.

As Poland gets set to potentially play Pakistan to Ukraine’s Afghanistan, serving as a staging area and training ground for rebel fighters slipping back and forth across the border to Ukraine, thereby further threatening war between NATO and Russia, we should recall that this all, in a sense, happened because the local governments in Donetsk and Luhansk could see the obvious: what had happened in Kyiv in 2013–14 was a coup, and they refused to recognize the new government. Further, we should remember that it was only when the Ukrainian military attempted to retake these regions by force that Russia intervened—and that since the Minsk Two peace accords failed to bring about a durable ceasefire, over 80 percent of those killed have been ethnic Russians living in the breakaway regions, and they were killed by the government in Kyiv.

With Democrats and Republicans fighting about who supports intervening in Ukraine more, and with uninformed and misled people increasingly calling for even more disastrous interventionist measures, the American public needs to be reminded that it is entirely possible for us to have a foreign policy that keeps us perfectly safe while not getting large numbers of people killed elsewhere, and further, that most of the various crises around the world that we are told the US needs to play a direct and integral part in solving are themselves the direct result of previous US interventions in those places.

Yep,  a great number of conflicts around the globe are at least partially caused by U.S. meddling.

 

[DE]

2 hours ago, Muda69 said:

Facing Unpleasant Facts: What You aren’t Supposed to say about the War in Ukraine

https://mises.org/wire/facing-unpleasant-facts-what-you-arent-supposed-say-about-war-ukraine-0

Yep,  a great number of conflicts around the globe are at least partially caused by U.S. meddling.

 

What people stand to PROFIT if we go to war?

Think Haliburton.......Cheney......W.......Powell......

[Muda69]

9 minutes ago, DE said:

What people stand to PROFIT if we go to war?

Think Haliburton.......Cheney......W.......Powell......

Yep.  I have posted this quote numerous times and I'll post it again:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."   - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

[DE]

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Yep.  I have posted this quote numerous times and I'll post it again:

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."   - President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

 

DDE was so LOVED, both the R and D's wanted him to run as POTUS for their party.

[swordfish]

When you know it's getting out of hand........

[swordfish]

Posted this before I looked at the meme thread......(Muda)

Edited April 28, 2022 by swordfish

[Muda69]

More Warmongering From The Swamp: https://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/ukraine-russia-mitch-mcconnell-warmongering-swamp/

Quote

atch the first 15 seconds or so of these remarks by Sen. Mitch McConnell, explaining why Republicans approved Joe Biden’s $40 billion Ukraine war request:

 

McConnell says, “I think we all agree that the most important thing going on in the world right now is the war in Ukraine.”

Who is “we”? Joe Biden, Mitch McConnell, and the rest of the Washington gang are marching us slowly into ever-greater involvement in a proxy war with Russia. Why is this in our national interest? I agree that Russia was wrong to have invaded Ukraine, but I cannot for the life of me figure out what we have to gain from risking war with Russia, or expanding this war to the rest of Europe.

Yesterday, I was stopped at a red light near a gas station. As I waited for the light to change, I saw the price of diesel fuel on the sign go up 13 cents. Living the past three months in Hungary, where the cost of living is low compared to the US, did not prepare me for the inflation shock when I got home. I bought a burger, fries, and a diet Coke at Burger King the other day: $11! And, in the city where I live, violent crime is rising. A friend of mine in Alabama is on his third round of Covid, and he’s been fully vaccinated. Do we really all agree that the most important thing going on in the world right now is the war in Ukraine?

Again: Washington does, and now we are at war with Russia. The US Government is openly bragging that its intelligence helped the Ukrainians kill Russian generals and sink a warship in the Black Sea. Is this really in our national interest, especially after twenty years of failed Middle Eastern wars? It boggles the mind. Here is Robin Wright, writing in The New Yorker:

America has crossed a threshold in Ukraine, both in its short-term involvement and its long-term intent. The U.S. was initially cautious during the fall and winter as Russia, a nuclear country with veto power at the U.N. Security Council, amassed more than a hundred and fifty thousand troops along the Ukrainian border. It didn’t want to poke the Russian bear—or provoke Vladimir Putin personally. Two days after long convoys of Russian tanks rolled across the border, on February 24th, the U.S. Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, still claimed that America’s goal—backed by hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid—was simply to stand behind the Ukrainian people. The White House sanctioned Russia—initially targeting a few banks, oligarchs, political élites, government-owned enterprises, and Putin’s own family—to pressure the Russian leader to put his troops back in their box, without resorting to military intervention. “Direct confrontation between NATO and Russia is World War Three, something we must strive to prevent,” President Joe Biden said, in early March.

Yet in just over nine weeks, the conflict has rapidly evolved into a full proxy war with Russia, with global ramifications. U.S. officials now frame America’s role in more ambitious terms that border on aggressive. The goal—backed by tens of billions of dollars in aid—is to “weaken” Russia and insure a sovereign Ukraine outlasts Putin. “Throughout our history, we’ve learned that when dictators do not pay the price for their aggression, they cause more chaos and engage in more aggression,” the President told reporters on Thursday. “They keep moving. And the costs, the threats to America and the world, keep rising.”

Forty billion dollars. More Robin Wright:

The Biden Administration has public support for its expanding role—for now. Despite war weariness after two decades in Afghanistan and Iraq, roughly two-thirds of Americans believe that the U.S. has a “moral responsibility” to do more to stop the killing of civilians in Ukraine, according to a Quinnipiac poll published in mid-April. In a country polarized on most other issues, a majority from both parties agreed. Three-quarters of those polled also fear that the worst is yet to come. And more than eighty per cent believe that Vladimir Putin is a war criminal. Yet the public’s moral outrage “stops at the water’s edge when it comes to committing the U.S. military to the fight,” Tim Malloy, a Quinnipiac University analyst, noted. Only nineteen per cent of Americans believe the U.S. should do more even if it risks getting into a direct war with Russia.

That conviction may soon be tested. The U.S. role has evolved—from a reactive response to Russia’s unjustified war to a proactive assertion of American leadership and leverage.

How many Americans understand that we really are at risk of getting into a direct war with Russia? That our elected leaders in Washington are voting for this. We aren’t even hiding the fact now that Washington regards this as a proxy war with Moscow.

 

Do you know that this is happening?

 

In Europe, Hungary’s Viktor Orban is once again being portrayed as History’s Greatest Monster because his government is holding up European Union sanctions banning Russian oil and gas. Why? Because those sanctions would destroy the Hungarian economy. Hungary gets 85% of its natural gas and 60% of its oil from Russia. And it is landlocked, meaning it could not receive shipments of oil and gas via tanker.

 

I agree that Putin is a bad man who should not have invaded Ukraine. But ask yourself: why is it in America’s interest to go deeper and deeper into the hole, committing itself to a shooting war with Russia, over Ukraine? Why is it in the EU’s interest to destroy its own member nations’ economies to cut off Russian oil and gas? Who is any of this benefiting?

UPDATE:More power to Damon Linker, who writes:

 

 

What the Biden administration has opted for is a form of proxy warfare in which Ukraine does the fighting, picks the targets, and fires the weapons, but we often supply the weapons and provide intelligence that enables Ukraine to choose targets wisely and precisely. This demonstrates American and NATO resolve while keeping us at least one step removed from directly engaging Russian forces. It’s good for Russia to know that our intelligence is strong enough to place their warships and senior military officers at serious risk — and that we are willing to share that intelligence with Ukraine. Both could well prompt de-escalation, as the Russian military command and President Vladimir Putin confront the reality that it might be impossible for them to achieve anything beyond relatively minimal war aims.

But such de-escalation becomes much less likely if the American role in inflicting pain on the Russian military is public knowledge. That’s because a big part of politics, even in authoritarian regimes, involves managing appearances. In order to sell a policy of de-escalation to the Russian people, Putin must be able to portray it as at least a partial victory. Otherwise, he would be risking looking weak and opening himself up to a collapse in support and/or a coup attempt that could leave him deposed from power and even dead. Humiliating Putin could also inflame patriotic rage among ordinary Russians, who could end up demanding retribution in the form of some face-saving action against NATO.

That’s how bragging to reporters about the American role in helping Ukraine inflict maximal harm against Russian forces could well initiate an escalatory spiral that culminates in direct military confrontation between the U.S. and Russia.

Read it all.I don’t believe we should be fighting a proxy war with Russia, but if we are, then we damn sure ought not to have our officials bragging about it!

UPDATE.2: People can’t buy baby formula in this country, but Democrats and Republicans in Washington and sending $40 billion to Ukraine.