« First « Previous Comments 1,134 - 1,173 of 1,226 Next » Last »
Four months into Russia’s Ukraine offensive, President Vladimir Putin conducted his second purge of its high command. Gen. Sergei Vladimirovich Surovkin was moved from the top job in Russia’s air and missile forces to the leadership of the Ukraine command after the sacking of Gen. Aleksander Dubrinikov.
Some oil rigs have been liberated from the liberators
Some oil rigs have been liberated from the liberators: http://www.hisutton.com/Burning-Russian-Oil-Rig-Detected.html
This substack is one of the most stupid takes on Ukraine I have read. Banning a pro-Russian party during war with Russia seems like a correct thing to do.
Just when you learned to prononce the weird-sounding name of another great commander leading the wildly successful Speshual Military Operashion....Four months into Russia’s Ukraine offensive, President Vladimir Putin conducted his second purge of its high command. Gen. Sergei Vladimirovich Surovkin was moved from the top job in Russia’s air and missile forces to the leadership of the Ukraine command after the sacking of Gen. Aleksander Dubrinikov.
Russians are preserving infrastructure and providing humanitarian corridors,
Russians are preserving infrastructure and providing humanitarian corridors,
https://dossier.substack.com/p/welcome-to-ukraine-celeb-visits-banned This substack is one of the most stupid takes on Ukraine I have read. Banning a pro-Russian party during war with Russia seems like a correct thing to do. etc etc etc
Why would you have to ban a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, if the Ukrainians, in a majority, are in favor of the Ukrainian war effort against Russia?
DC is sending an old school 'Nazi chaser' to examine human rights violations, presumably by the Russians. LOL! I wonder how he is going to pull that off surrounded by Nazis.
richwicks saysWhy would you have to ban a pro-Russian party in Ukraine, if the Ukrainians, in a majority, are in favor of the Ukrainian war effort against Russia?Isn't it fun to say things that pretend to be logical but aren't in any way of form?
I'll give you a hint: countries that banned the Nazi party during WW2 didn't do it because majority in those countries supported Germany. You can scrape up the remaining grey cells to answer your own misguided question.
can you explain the joke?
You don't have to censor or ban anything, if they are wrong.
@Ceffer I see you've been dumpster diving again. Just so you know: the snapshot that you attached quotes Mizintsev. Google him (or duckduckgo). He's the piece of shit who bombed the theater in Mariupol. You know, the one that was double-purposed as a shelter. He's the piece of shit who's done the same to the maternity hospital in there. He's the piece of shit who first made his bones by committing atrocities in Syria (i.e. Aleppo) But what can be more reputable than Hague material who now goes out of his way to shift the blame, amiright?
Why do you automatically trust what the United States government says when they lie to you so often?
We'll start to know what happened in this stupid fucking war after the war is over, and not before.
richwicks saysWhy do you automatically trust what the United States government says when they lie to you so often?I don't automatically trust what US government says. I kinda told you that quite a few times. Poor memory? Or multiple actors with poorly managed communication behind one handle? That would also explain constant requests for backquotes.
richwicks saysWe'll start to know what happened in this stupid fucking war after the war is over, and not before.We DO know what's happening in this stupid fucking war.
Unless of course you get your data from Gonzalo Lira and such.
On large scale, that is. Little things may be hidden by the fog of war, but bird's-eye view has been clear for a while.
I don't care what people claim, I'm pointing out what you do. Everything you say with regard to the Russian/Ukraine conflict, and I mean absolutely everything you say, entirely aligns with the US "narrative". Everything, without exception.
You had the temerity to deny that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.
I was dumbfounded by that...
While once viewed as a realistic outcome, by now it should be obvious that this is impossible. Just as Ukraine lacks the ability to liberate all its pre-2014 territory, it also lacks the ability to liberate the recently conquered territory in the Donbas or along the Azov coast. Unlike in the north of Ukraine, these territories are central to Russian interests in Ukraine and, as such, Russia simply will not withdraw from them as it withdrew from Kyiv earlier in the war. Nor will Ukrainian forces – themselves, it should be noted, suffering terrible attrition all along the battle front and growing weaker with each passing day – be strong enough to compel them to do so. No, like the previous two scenarios, this one is simply an impossibility.And that leaves only one other conceivable outcome: a fragmented and partly dismembered Ukraine, neither fully part of the West nor entirely within the Russian sphere of influence. A Ukraine fragmented in that the whole of the Donbas and perhaps other territories will be left beyond Kyiv’s control; partly dismembered in that Crimea will remain part of Russia (at least in Russian eyes); and not fully part of the West in that it will not be free to join NATO or even to have a meaningful partnership with the EU. Simply put, this outcome is not only not impossible, it’s not even improbable.And when this final scenario comes to pass, who will have won the war in Ukraine?Well, it won’t be Ukraine. While such an outcome will satisfy the basic existential goals of Kyiv, it will be a far cry from the more maximalist ambitions expressed both before and after Feb. 24. No, when this scenario inevitably comes to pass, it will clearly be a defeat for Kyiv....All of which suggests that, at the end of the day, it might be necessary to tweak Holmes’s aphorism just a bit. At least when it comes to thinking about the possible outcomes of the war in Ukraine, perhaps it ought to read something more like: “When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable unpalatable, must be the truth.”
richwicks saysYou had the temerity to deny that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.Bullshit. You lie. Again. I never said such a thing. Aren't you tired of lying?
Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?
Second:We've talked about this MULTIPLE TIMES.
Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?I don't know. Probably not.
Voice thought to be Pyatt's: I think we're in play. The Klitschko [Vitaly Klitschko, one of three main opposition leaders] piece is obviously the complicated electron here. Especially the announcement of him as deputy prime minister and you've seen some of my notes on the troubles in the marriage right now so we're trying to get a read really fast on where he is on this stuff. But I think your argument to him, which you'll need to make, I think that's the next phone call you want to set up, is exactly the one you made to Yats [Arseniy Yatseniuk, another opposition leader]. And I'm glad you sort of put him on the spot on where he fits in this scenario. And I'm very glad that he said what he said in response.Jonathan Marcus: The US says that it is working with all sides in the crisis to reach a peaceful solution, noting that "ultimately it is up to the Ukrainian people to decide their future". However this transcript suggests that the US has very clear ideas about what the outcome should be and is striving to achieve these goals. Russian spokesmen have insisted that the US is meddling in Ukraine's affairs - no more than Moscow, the cynic might say - but Washington clearly has its own game-plan. The clear purpose in leaking this conversation is to embarrass Washington and for audiences susceptible to Moscow's message to portray the US as interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs.Nuland: Good. I don't think Klitsch should go into the government. I don't think it's necessary, I don't think it's a good idea.Pyatt: Yeah. I guess... in terms of him not going into the government, just let him stay out and do his political homework and stuff. I'm just thinking in terms of sort of the process moving ahead we want to keep the moderate democrats together. The problem is going to be Tyahnybok [Oleh Tyahnybok, the other opposition leader] and his guys and I'm sure that's part of what [President Viktor] Yanukovych is calculating on all this.Nuland: [Breaks in] I think Yats is the guy who's got the economic experience, the governing experience. He's the... what he needs is Klitsch and Tyahnybok on the outside. He needs to be talking to them four times a week, you know. I just think Klitsch going in... he's going to be at that level working for Yatseniuk, it's just not going to work.Pyatt: Yeah, no, I think that's right. OK. Good. Do you want us to set up a call with him as the next step?Nuland: My understanding from that call - but you tell me - was that the big three were going into their own meeting and that Yats was going to offer in that context a... three-plus-one conversation or three-plus-two with you. Is that not how you understood it?Pyatt: No. I think... I mean that's what he proposed but I think, just knowing the dynamic that's been with them where Klitschko has been the top dog, he's going to take a while to show up for whatever meeting they've got and he's probably talking to his guys at this point, so I think you reaching out directly to him helps with the personality management among the three and it gives you also a chance to move fast on all this stuff and put us behind it before they all sit down and he explains why he doesn't like it.Nuland: OK, good. I'm happy. Why don't you reach out to him and see if he wants to talk before or after.Pyatt: OK, will do. Thanks.Nuland: OK... one more wrinkle for you Geoff. [A click can be heard] I can't remember if I told you this, or if I only told Washington this, that when I talked to Jeff Feltman [United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs] this morning, he had a new name for the UN guy Robert Serry did I write you that this morning?Jonathan Marcus: An intriguing insight into the foreign policy process with work going on at a number of levels: Various officials attempting to marshal the Ukrainian opposition; efforts to get the UN to play an active role in bolstering a deal; and (as you can see below) the big guns waiting in the wings - US Vice-President Joe Biden clearly being lined up to give private words of encouragement at the appropriate moment.Pyatt: Yeah I saw that.Nuland: OK. He's now gotten both Serry and [UN Secretary General] Ban Ki-moon to agree that Serry could come in Monday or Tuesday. So that would be great, I think, to help glue this thing and to have the UN help glue it and, you know, Fuck the EU.Jonathan Marcus: Not for the first time in an international crisis, the US expresses frustration at the EU's efforts. Washington and Brussels have not been completely in step during the Ukraine crisis. The EU is divided and to some extent hesitant about picking a fight with Moscow. It certainly cannot win a short-term battle for Ukraine's affections with Moscow - it just does not have the cash inducements available. The EU has sought to play a longer game; banking on its attraction over time. But the US clearly is determined to take a much more activist role.Pyatt: No, exactly. And I think we've got to do something to make it stick together because you can be pretty sure that if it does start to gain altitude, that the Russians will be working behind the scenes to try to torpedo it. And again the fact that this is out there right now, I'm still trying to figure out in my mind why Yanukovych (garbled) that. In the meantime there's a Party of Regions faction meeting going on right now and I'm sure there's a lively argument going on in that group at this point. But anyway we could land jelly side up on this one if we move fast. So let me work on Klitschko and if you can just keep... we want to try to get somebody with an international personality to come out here and help to midwife this thing. The other issue is some kind of outreach to Yanukovych but we probably regroup on that tomorrow as we see how things start to fall into place.Nuland: So on that piece Geoff, when I wrote the note [US vice-president's national security adviser Jake] Sullivan's come back to me VFR [direct to me], saying you need [US Vice-President Joe] Biden and I said probably tomorrow for an atta-boy and to get the deets [details] to stick. So Biden's willing.Pyatt: OK. Great. Thanks.Jonathan Marcus: Overall this is a damaging episode between Washington and Moscow. Nobody really emerges with any credit. The US is clearly much more involved in trying to broker a deal in Ukraine than it publicly lets on. There is some embarrassment too for the Americans given the ease with which their communications were hacked. But is the interception and leaking of communications really the way Russia wants to conduct its foreign policy ? Goodness - after Wikileaks, Edward Snowden and the like could the Russian government be joining the radical apostles of open government? I doubt it. Though given some of the comments from Vladimir Putin's adviser on Ukraine Sergei Glazyev - for example his interview with the Kommersant-Ukraine newspaper the other day - you don't need your own listening station to be clear about Russia's intentions. Russia he said "must interfere in Ukraine" and the authorities there should use force against the demonstrators.
richwicks saysSecond:We've talked about this MULTIPLE TIMES.Every single link that you produced supports my statement about what was said and what wasn't. Not yours
mostly reader saysAnd yet you run away from a simple question: now that we know that her line was compromised,I know who and what NuLand and Kagan are, I've followed her for years. She's a corrupt criminal monster.In any case, I don't care to spend time convincing you of, what is to me and many others, blatantly obvious.Of course the US overthrew Ukraine. Nuland has been verbally attacking Russia for near a decade. The coup followed the same basic features of Ajax and PBSuccess. Take over media, foment astroturf unrest, demonize the leader, try to get them to react, fake the reaction if necessary.
However, I did deny that "US did a coup"
Here's another question
I'm left with 3 possibilities:
What's that a picture of?
richwicks says Did the United States instigate a coup d'état in Ukraine in 2014 to install Arseniy Yatseniuk and remove Viktor Yanukovych? Yes or no?
richwicks saysHere's another questionNot so fast.1) I caught you lying.You claimed that I denied that Victoria Nuland was picking out the next leader of Ukraine in her intercepted phone call with Geoffrey Pyatt.
You can't see this contradiction
richwicks saysYou don't have to censor or ban anything, if they are wrong.This, right there. This is bunch of crap and you know it. Because PROPAGANDA WORKS!
Good news! Apparently, US narrative is not always wrong.
You can't see this contradictionYawn.
richwicks saysWhat's that a picture of?Grozny, circa 2000, courtesy of Russia which according to you is completely different from USSR.
happened shortly after the USSR collapsed.
We'll see in time. It would break a 20 year losing streak.
Something not too high
richwicks sayshappened shortly after the USSR collapsed.False. 2nd Chechen war started when Putin was in charge
I think you simply can not accept that Putin is a genocidal maniac who killed people by hundreds of thousands.
You failed to counter my points and instead just keep babbling, a