What does Putin want (and whatabout it)
Should Nikola Jokic have won 3rd MVP? This seems to be the question of the day based on the eight screens that I am now surrounded by. MVP? I guess that is a sports thing. They have four people discussing this and one of them is extremely emotional about it and the others are just standing there frozen like. There is no sound so I don't know the pros and cons. I am getting out of here. I've had enough.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
Number 2 - existential threat - yes textbook definition. Russia would cease to exist as a country. Or. it could continue to exist with an installed US puppet which might be just as bad (see the 1990s). This was the plan.
It's hilarious that you, a person who fell for the Russiagate hoax, thinks I don't know what actually happened. You don't even acknowledge the 2014 US backed Ukraine coup. You keep asking me to explain things when I've explained them a gazillion times and it went right over your head. You are struggling to keep up.
thank you. This distillation of your views has confirmed that you are ridiculous.
The NATO plan is to turn Russia into the 51st state, apparently.
okie doke.
as for twitter, I ask for one example and you point me to volumes of nothingness.
Please tell me you are acting deliberately dense just to stick in my craw. Because otherwise you might not even qualify for the concrete level of thinking.
The NATO/US plan was to get rid of Putin and then try to install a CIA plant like Navalney. So, I guess it is like making Russia the 51st state except Ukraine is now our 51st state and it looks like the favorite because we are sending all our money there.
As for Twitter -- the examples were right in the post. Basic reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you. I will be nice and post some of it for you again. Hopefully this is the end of the Matt Taibbi bashing but I'm not holding my breath.
When you open this document it is titled "The Censorship Industrial Complex. He has evidence of the FBI, DHS and other agencies coming to twitter with spreadsheets of hundreds or thousands of accounts for review. According to Taibbi, these accounts would then be deleted.
Moving down this document and what do I see! I see anti-Ukraine accounts looking at me!
Wow, this is interesting. Guess who was allowed to work in "partnership" with Twitter? The National Endowment for Democracy (our favorite NGO), the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR division), and the group that created Hamilton68 - the fake Russian bot mentioned in mainstream news a gazillion times. The fake Russian bot people were allowed to scan Twitter for fake Russian bots.
Anyway, I suggest you read through these documents before you diss the hard work Mr. Taibbi put into this research and the valuable contribution he made to free speech.
How is getting rid of Putin an existential threat to Russia?
As for twitter - yet again, your low standards for what qualifies as evidence continues to shine. But yeah, I'm done with twitter. I have enough infinite loops with you going on.
Well, except for this. Hard work?
hahahahahahahaha
Musk dumped a ton of documents on Taibbi. All he had to do was read through them. A half-trained monkey could have done what he did. There was absolutely no journalism involved.
You guys are so silly.
nan said:
drummerboy said:
PVW said:
Fair -- I'm a fan of trying to keep some thread topic discipline. So I'll point you to a relevant thread, and to what I think is a relevant post:
I point out that twitter doesn't seem to have faced any consequences whenever it refused requests and suggestions from the government. Terp replies that it could have been secret consequences and that there were hypothetical possible consequences. I remain unconvinced that hypothetical consequences are evidence of government censorship.
Feel free to join the thread and add your own thoughts.
Obviously you are unconvinced due to your concrete nature.
hmm. now that I think about it, it's probably why she put that story in her book.
she's psychotic enough to do that.
Guess you are now viewing the concrete label as an insult. Things have changed.
Not so much as an insult as a telling insight into your epistemology.
nan said:
PVW said:
What I think you're trying to say is that the plot to unseat Putin had two parts:
1. Have Ukraine invade Russia and forcibly depose Putin
2. Instigate fighting in the Donbas to trick Russia into invading Ukraine which would, in some unspecified way, cause Putin to lose power.
Is that right?
Part of it but also to have a big NATO type buildup on Russia's border which is crossing a red line Putin has made clear about since forever. It's not acceptable. We would not allow Mexico to anything like what Ukraine has been doing. . . OMG they have a robot delivering breakfasts! . . . Is that common now? I almost never go to restaurants.
It's nice to finally have some explicit claims, thank you.
An imminent Ukrainian invasion certainly would have been a real threat, but there's zero real world evidence that this was ever something anyone was planning, or that Ukraine was ever capable of such a thing. Even today, after Ukraine's allies have dramatically ramped up their military supply to Ukraine, I highly doubt Ukraine would have the ability to march an army to Moscow and depose Putin. It certainly didn't have that ability from 2014-2022.
As for the other two points:
- the idea that Ukraine wanted Russia to invade it is... well there's an obvious, frequently made analogy made on this thread on the logic of that. And it's not at all clear to me how that was supposed to work -- why would Russia invading Ukraine lead to Putin losing power?
- similarly for "NATO type buildup." Why would that cause Putin to lose power?
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
Number 2 - existential threat - yes textbook definition. Russia would cease to exist as a country. Or. it could continue to exist with an installed US puppet which might be just as bad (see the 1990s). This was the plan.
It's hilarious that you, a person who fell for the Russiagate hoax, thinks I don't know what actually happened. You don't even acknowledge the 2014 US backed Ukraine coup. You keep asking me to explain things when I've explained them a gazillion times and it went right over your head. You are struggling to keep up.
thank you. This distillation of your views has confirmed that you are ridiculous.
The NATO plan is to turn Russia into the 51st state, apparently.
okie doke.
as for twitter, I ask for one example and you point me to volumes of nothingness.
Please tell me you are acting deliberately dense just to stick in my craw. Because otherwise you might not even qualify for the concrete level of thinking.
The NATO/US plan was to get rid of Putin and then try to install a CIA plant like Navalney. So, I guess it is like making Russia the 51st state except Ukraine is now our 51st state and it looks like the favorite because we are sending all our money there.
As for Twitter -- the examples were right in the post. Basic reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you. I will be nice and post some of it for you again. Hopefully this is the end of the Matt Taibbi bashing but I'm not holding my breath.
When you open this document it is titled "The Censorship Industrial Complex. He has evidence of the FBI, DHS and other agencies coming to twitter with spreadsheets of hundreds or thousands of accounts for review. According to Taibbi, these accounts would then be deleted.
Moving down this document and what do I see! I see anti-Ukraine accounts looking at me!
Wow, this is interesting. Guess who was allowed to work in "partnership" with Twitter? The National Endowment for Democracy (our favorite NGO), the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR division), and the group that created Hamilton68 - the fake Russian bot mentioned in mainstream news a gazillion times. The fake Russian bot people were allowed to scan Twitter for fake Russian bots.
Anyway, I suggest you read through these documents before you diss the hard work Mr. Taibbi put into this research and the valuable contribution he made to free speech.How is getting rid of Putin an existential threat to Russia?
l'etat c'est Putin.
nan said:
Should Nikola Jokic have won 3rd MVP? This seems to be the question of the day based on the eight screens that I am now surrounded by. MVP? I guess that is a sports thing. They have four people discussing this and one of them is extremely emotional about it and the others are just standing there frozen like. There is no sound so I don't know the pros and cons. I am getting out of here. I've had enough.
Well there's two ways to go about answering such a question. One would be to look at his performance, compare it to others' performances, and form an opinion based on that. The other would be to see what team he plays for, ask if that team is aligned with or opposed to the CIA, and form an opinion based on that.
PVW said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
Number 2 - existential threat - yes textbook definition. Russia would cease to exist as a country. Or. it could continue to exist with an installed US puppet which might be just as bad (see the 1990s). This was the plan.
It's hilarious that you, a person who fell for the Russiagate hoax, thinks I don't know what actually happened. You don't even acknowledge the 2014 US backed Ukraine coup. You keep asking me to explain things when I've explained them a gazillion times and it went right over your head. You are struggling to keep up.
thank you. This distillation of your views has confirmed that you are ridiculous.
The NATO plan is to turn Russia into the 51st state, apparently.
okie doke.
as for twitter, I ask for one example and you point me to volumes of nothingness.
Please tell me you are acting deliberately dense just to stick in my craw. Because otherwise you might not even qualify for the concrete level of thinking.
The NATO/US plan was to get rid of Putin and then try to install a CIA plant like Navalney. So, I guess it is like making Russia the 51st state except Ukraine is now our 51st state and it looks like the favorite because we are sending all our money there.
As for Twitter -- the examples were right in the post. Basic reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you. I will be nice and post some of it for you again. Hopefully this is the end of the Matt Taibbi bashing but I'm not holding my breath.
When you open this document it is titled "The Censorship Industrial Complex. He has evidence of the FBI, DHS and other agencies coming to twitter with spreadsheets of hundreds or thousands of accounts for review. According to Taibbi, these accounts would then be deleted.
Moving down this document and what do I see! I see anti-Ukraine accounts looking at me!
Wow, this is interesting. Guess who was allowed to work in "partnership" with Twitter? The National Endowment for Democracy (our favorite NGO), the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR division), and the group that created Hamilton68 - the fake Russian bot mentioned in mainstream news a gazillion times. The fake Russian bot people were allowed to scan Twitter for fake Russian bots.
Anyway, I suggest you read through these documents before you diss the hard work Mr. Taibbi put into this research and the valuable contribution he made to free speech.How is getting rid of Putin an existential threat to Russia?
l'etat c'est Putin.
I was expecting that answer from her, but I was still surprised that she actually admitted to it.
PVW said:
nan said:
Part of it but also to have a big NATO type buildup on Russia's border which is crossing a red line Putin has made clear about since forever. It's not acceptable. We would not allow Mexico to anything like what Ukraine has been doing. . .
It's nice to finally have some explicit claims, thank you.
An imminent Ukrainian invasion certainly would have been a real threat, but there's zero real world evidence that this was ever something anyone was planning, or that Ukraine was ever capable of such a thing. Even today, after Ukraine's allies have dramatically ramped up their military supply to Ukraine, I highly doubt Ukraine would have the ability to march an army to Moscow and depose Putin. It certainly didn't have that ability from 2014-2022.
Russia launched the full-scale invasion, across all of its borders (including Belarus) into Ukraine based on its belief that the Ukrainian army was incapable of resisting that invasion. So, it's ridiculous to argue that Russia feared an invasion from Ukraine at the time of its invasion.
drummerboy said:
nan said:
drummerboy said:
nan said:
Number 2 - existential threat - yes textbook definition. Russia would cease to exist as a country. Or. it could continue to exist with an installed US puppet which might be just as bad (see the 1990s). This was the plan.
It's hilarious that you, a person who fell for the Russiagate hoax, thinks I don't know what actually happened. You don't even acknowledge the 2014 US backed Ukraine coup. You keep asking me to explain things when I've explained them a gazillion times and it went right over your head. You are struggling to keep up.
thank you. This distillation of your views has confirmed that you are ridiculous.
The NATO plan is to turn Russia into the 51st state, apparently.
okie doke.
as for twitter, I ask for one example and you point me to volumes of nothingness.
Please tell me you are acting deliberately dense just to stick in my craw. Because otherwise you might not even qualify for the concrete level of thinking.
The NATO/US plan was to get rid of Putin and then try to install a CIA plant like Navalney. So, I guess it is like making Russia the 51st state except Ukraine is now our 51st state and it looks like the favorite because we are sending all our money there.
As for Twitter -- the examples were right in the post. Basic reading comprehension seems to be a concern for you. I will be nice and post some of it for you again. Hopefully this is the end of the Matt Taibbi bashing but I'm not holding my breath.
When you open this document it is titled "The Censorship Industrial Complex. He has evidence of the FBI, DHS and other agencies coming to twitter with spreadsheets of hundreds or thousands of accounts for review. According to Taibbi, these accounts would then be deleted.
Moving down this document and what do I see! I see anti-Ukraine accounts looking at me!
Wow, this is interesting. Guess who was allowed to work in "partnership" with Twitter? The National Endowment for Democracy (our favorite NGO), the Atlantic Council (NATO's PR division), and the group that created Hamilton68 - the fake Russian bot mentioned in mainstream news a gazillion times. The fake Russian bot people were allowed to scan Twitter for fake Russian bots.
Anyway, I suggest you read through these documents before you diss the hard work Mr. Taibbi put into this research and the valuable contribution he made to free speech.How is getting rid of Putin an existential threat to Russia?
As for twitter - yet again, your low standards for what qualifies as evidence continues to shine. But yeah, I'm done with twitter. I have enough infinite loops with you going on.
Well, except for this. Hard work?
hahahahahahahaha
Musk dumped a ton of documents on Taibbi. All he had to do was read through them. A half-trained monkey could have done what he did. There was absolutely no journalism involved.
You guys are so silly.
You seriously think it's OK for the US to remove a democratically elected president? You don't consider that an existential threat for the country? You were part of an enormous group that worried about Trump being installed by Putin. It was considered the end of Democracy and the beginning of fascism. That even did not happen, but the US WAS involved in trying to remove Putin.
Your requirements for evidence are impossible because you only accept evidence that agrees with what you already think. And you don't put in the effort to actually understand what you are talking about.
The comment about Musk and Taibbi does not even make sense except to demonstrate that when I do present good evidence you just make up some crap and call me a name. That's your version of surrender, I guess.
D- on a good day.
PVW said:
nan said:
Should Nikola Jokic have won 3rd MVP? This seems to be the question of the day based on the eight screens that I am now surrounded by. MVP? I guess that is a sports thing. They have four people discussing this and one of them is extremely emotional about it and the others are just standing there frozen like. There is no sound so I don't know the pros and cons. I am getting out of here. I've had enough.
Well there's two ways to go about answering such a question. One would be to look at his performance, compare it to others' performances, and form an opinion based on that. The other would be to see what team he plays for, ask if that team is aligned with or opposed to the CIA, and form an opinion based on that.
I googled him and found out he plays basketball. I lost interest after that.
PVW said:
nan said:
PVW said:
What I think you're trying to say is that the plot to unseat Putin had two parts:
1. Have Ukraine invade Russia and forcibly depose Putin
2. Instigate fighting in the Donbas to trick Russia into invading Ukraine which would, in some unspecified way, cause Putin to lose power.
Is that right?
Part of it but also to have a big NATO type buildup on Russia's border which is crossing a red line Putin has made clear about since forever. It's not acceptable. We would not allow Mexico to anything like what Ukraine has been doing. . . OMG they have a robot delivering breakfasts! . . . Is that common now? I almost never go to restaurants.
It's nice to finally have some explicit claims, thank you.
An imminent Ukrainian invasion certainly would have been a real threat, but there's zero real world evidence that this was ever something anyone was planning, or that Ukraine was ever capable of such a thing. Even today, after Ukraine's allies have dramatically ramped up their military supply to Ukraine, I highly doubt Ukraine would have the ability to march an army to Moscow and depose Putin. It certainly didn't have that ability from 2014-2022.
As for the other two points:
- the idea that Ukraine wanted Russia to invade it is... well there's an obvious, frequently made analogy made on this thread on the logic of that. And it's not at all clear to me how that was supposed to work -- why would Russia invading Ukraine lead to Putin losing power?
- similarly for "NATO type buildup." Why would that cause Putin to lose power?
At the beginning of the war Ukraine was told not to go after targets inside Russia. Not that a sense of desperation is setting in they are doing some reckless attacks. The western attitude about this has varied. But, the plan never was to have Ukraine march into Moscow and take Putin. The plan was to undermine his rule so that the people stopped supporting him (they do support him--I know you don't think so but they do). They way they do that is through sanctions that hurt the Russian people (except they backfired and hurt the West instead), and to build up Western controlled opposition groups(like Navalney. Currently, they have been attacking civilian targets (Daria Dugina, a journalist in a cafe) in Moscow and terrorizing the people.
Russians do not want a NATO buildup so they would lose confidence in a leader who allowed that to happen without responding. They don't feel safe with NATO on the doorstop.
nan said:
PVW said:
nan said:
Should Nikola Jokic have won 3rd MVP? This seems to be the question of the day based on the eight screens that I am now surrounded by. MVP? I guess that is a sports thing. They have four people discussing this and one of them is extremely emotional about it and the others are just standing there frozen like. There is no sound so I don't know the pros and cons. I am getting out of here. I've had enough.
Well there's two ways to go about answering such a question. One would be to look at his performance, compare it to others' performances, and form an opinion based on that. The other would be to see what team he plays for, ask if that team is aligned with or opposed to the CIA, and form an opinion based on that.
I googled him and found out he plays basketball. I lost interest after that.
Basketball is an American invention, so of course you'd lose interest. 
The entire Russian war effort is based on the terrorizing of civilians in Ukraine, if anyone is honestly concerned about civilian casualties in that war.
nohero said:
PVW said:
nan said:
Part of it but also to have a big NATO type buildup on Russia's border which is crossing a red line Putin has made clear about since forever. It's not acceptable. We would not allow Mexico to anything like what Ukraine has been doing. . .
It's nice to finally have some explicit claims, thank you.
An imminent Ukrainian invasion certainly would have been a real threat, but there's zero real world evidence that this was ever something anyone was planning, or that Ukraine was ever capable of such a thing. Even today, after Ukraine's allies have dramatically ramped up their military supply to Ukraine, I highly doubt Ukraine would have the ability to march an army to Moscow and depose Putin. It certainly didn't have that ability from 2014-2022.
Russia launched the full-scale invasion, across all of its borders (including Belarus) into Ukraine based on its belief that the Ukrainian army was incapable of resisting that invasion. So, it's ridiculous to argue that Russia feared an invasion from Ukraine at the time of its invasion.
First of all it was not a full-scale invasion--that's just the western buzz phrase. It was a Special Military Operation. Second how do you know that was their "belief" about the Ukrainian army? They knew the Ukrainian army was really just the US/NATO army who were dying for Americans (as Adam Schiff said, "they fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight them over here.").
It is ridiculous to think Russia would fear an invasion from Ukraine -- it was the US and West and NATO they were worried about. Ukraine is just a proxy.
nan said:
First of all it was not a full-scale invasion--that's just the western buzz phrase. It was a Special Military Operation.
In other words, you're saying, "Who are you going to believe: me and Putin; or your lyin' eyes."
nan said:
You seriously think it's OK for the US to remove a democratically elected president? You don't consider that an existential threat for the country? You were part of an enormous group that worried about Trump being installed by Putin. It was considered the end of Democracy and the beginning of fascism. That even did not happen, but the US WAS involved in trying to remove Putin.
Your requirements for evidence are impossible because you only accept evidence that agrees with what you already think. And you don't put in the effort to actually understand what you are talking about.
The comment about Musk and Taibbi does not even make sense except to demonstrate that when I do present good evidence you just make up some crap and call me a name. That's your version of surrender, I guess.
D- on a good day.
oh lordy lou once again.
where did I say, or come close to saying, it was OK to remove a democratically elected president?
why, nowhere!!
we were talking about what constitutes an existential threat to Russia. you think that a threat to Putin (a non-existent threat, btw) was a threat to the very existence of Russia. If you want to think that, be my guess, but only people of a certain mind-set would take you seriously.
as for Mush and Taibbi, sorry I confused you. Taibbi was nothing more than a stenographer in the twitter files story. he investigated nothing. all he did was read what Musk dumped in his lap and pick out the parts that looked juicy. you want to give kudos to Taibbi for this, as if what he did was a great journalistic accomplishment. that's silly because it was kind of the opposite of that.
nan said:
You seriously think it's OK for the US to remove a democratically elected president? You don't consider that an existential threat for the country? You were part of an enormous group that worried about Trump being installed by Putin. It was considered the end of Democracy and the beginning of fascism. That even did not happen, but the US WAS involved in trying to remove Putin.
No, it is not. So I am glad we didn't do that in Ukraine.
nan said:
First of all it was not a full-scale invasion--that's just the western buzz phrase. It was a Special Military Operation. Second how do you know that was their "belief" about the Ukrainian army? They knew the Ukrainian army was really just the US/NATO army who were dying for Americans (as Adam Schiff said, "they fight Russia over there so we don't have to fight them over here.").
And the Korean War was just a police action. I suspect, however, that when you are in the area of fighting, the distinction between a war, a full-scale war, a police action or a special military operation is rather meaningless.
Seriously, Nan, I cannot believe you aren't calling a war a war.
Nan,
I was interested in an earlier comment you made about Russia's rich culture and history while Ukraine is just some corrupt creation of the West. (I won't tire you by pointing out that Ukraine has a rather rich culture and history and was a great nation before Russia.)
What I was wondering is if the Nan doctrine is that countries with rich culture and history have a free ticket to destroy other nations. I am rather keen on reestablishing Magna Graecia and I think it is clear, based on your doctrine, that Athens is well within her rights to start invading neighboring countries.
PVW said:
nan said:
Thanks! I will read soon and comment (but not tonight).
You're welcome, but don't feel obligated to read or comment on my behalf. I don't think there's much there you'd agree with or find particularly compelling.
OK, I read the Anne Applebaum Atlantic article. Anne Applebaum is the Queen of neocons – up there with Victoria Nuland. She is married to the guy who posted “Thank You USA!” after “someone” blew up Nordstream. He celebrates disasters and his wife creates the fiction to justify them. This article highlights her most polished tool: a masterclasses in propaganda narratives for ignorant and gullible participants. She reduces world power structures to simplistic opposites with the West being good and democratic and the rest evil and authoritarian. Anyone who questions this is smeared and attacked with lots of guilt by association. She also goes to great lengths to deny that real events that counter her narrative never happened. She relies heavily on the “Russian disinformation” type of explanation, even for things that have been admitted in public. I have to think she knows she is lying and probably thinks it’s for our own good.
If you believe Anne Applebaum's world view as she describes it than you must believe that it is the US/NATO/West's obligation to, by any means necessary including endless war, overthrowing democratically elected leaders and courting nuclear disasters just so the pure, godly liberal hegemonic US can continue to be the most powerful country on Earth. This is a dangerous and yet predominate fantasy in Washington, and will not go away no matter who wins the next presidential election.
So, I ask all of you on this message board who thought this was a great article: are you willing to sacrifice your family and yourself and your sense of security over who controls territory in the Donbas? Because that's what Applebaum's disastrous and false neocon message is leading us.
nan said:
PVW said:
What I think you're trying to say is that the plot to unseat Putin had two parts:
1. Have Ukraine invade Russia and forcibly depose Putin
2. Instigate fighting in the Donbas to trick Russia into invading Ukraine which would, in some unspecified way, cause Putin to lose power.
Is that right?
Part of it but also to have a big NATO type buildup on Russia's border which is crossing a red line Putin has made clear about since forever. It's not acceptable. We would not allow Mexico to anything like what Ukraine has been doing. . . OMG they have a robot delivering breakfasts! . . . Is that common now? I almost never go to restaurants.
nan said:
At the beginning of the war Ukraine was told not to go after targets inside Russia. Not that a sense of desperation is setting in they are doing some reckless attacks. The western attitude about this has varied. But, the plan never was to have Ukraine march into Moscow and take Putin. The plan was to undermine his rule so that the people stopped supporting him (
nan said:
It is ridiculous to think Russia would fear an invasion from Ukraine -- it was the US and West and NATO they were worried about. Ukraine is just a proxy.
Make up your mind -- are you claiming there was a plan to invade Russia and overthrow Putin or not?
nan said:
If you believe Anne Applebaum's world view as she describes it than you must believe that it is the US/NATO/West's obligation to, by any means necessary including endless war
Why must one believe that? Seems a non-sequitur to me.
nan said:
Anne Applebaum is the Queen of neocons – up there with Victoria Nuland.
“People now understand the principle of ‘preventative invasion,’ that wars can be launched, nowadays, not because of what a hostile regime actually did, but because of what it might do in the future.”
I want to see nan tell any Ukrainian to his or her face that this is not a war.
nan said:
So, I ask all of you on this message board who thought this was a great article: are you willing to sacrifice your family and yourself and your sense of security over who controls territory in the Donbas? Because that's what Applebaum's disastrous and false neocon message is leading us.
If that’s what you think the article is about, you didn’t read it.
nan said:
The plan was to undermine his rule so that the people stopped supporting him (they do support him--I know you don't think so but they do).
A desire to maintain popular support is an incredibly weak causus belli, but I think we've already established you're far more supportive of starting wars than I am.
(yes, yes, I know you have your own definitions, but in standard English, the country that invades the other is the one labeled the aggressor. However provoked you feel Russia was by events in Ukraine, the fact remains that it was the Russian military that invaded Ukraine, not the other way around.)
dave said:
I want to see nan tell any Ukrainian to his or her face that this is not a war.
That can be arranged in Maplewood.
dave said:
I want to see nan tell any Ukrainian to his or her face that this is not a war.
If she gets through that, she can try telling the Kremlin.
For Sale
-
REVO luggage $100
More info
Free Items
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
nan - are you allergic to actually use Vlad media and Putin's actual words and actions when discussing Ukraine?
Why can't you acknowledge the toll it's taking on a whole generation of conscripts in Russia?
And you double down on the Nazi issue - but can't provide any metrics - ever! It's a constant rephrasing of Russian propaganda on a daily basis. A huge reason for Vlad's invasion is regime change in Ukraine - starting with Zelenskyy - are you onboard with this goal?