Russian Ukraine shenanigans

[gearhog]

2 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Sounds like the dude is trying to get a juicy contract for an investigation no one wants.

The investigations have been done. Everyone who has a stake in knowing the answer already does. And all interested parties have decided to move on without public commentary.

Besides, his defense of the UN is a bit too rosy to take seriously. I get it, he's trying to get them to find him, but come on.

This dude clearly has his own bias and motivations. Everyone does and we all have narrow limited perspectives. My point being you have to allow yourself to step outside your own and hear an uncomfortable perspective in spite of it's subjective flaws to find an objective truth. In this case, the man has a history that is both credible and questionable. But he challenges the prevailing narrative. If the narrative is water tight, it should stand up to scrutiny.

I would argue that the public has largest moral claim to a stake in knowing the answer. Shouldn't we, as citizens of an American democracy know without a doubt that our leaders did not have a hand it this? I don't want my government sabotaging the infrastructure of not just an enemy we are technically not at war with, but that of citizens of allied countries as well, then lying about it... and doing so in the name of its people.

He is obviously sucking up to the UN to try an get a public investigation. Or perhaps he's knows an investigation is unlikely, and wanted to vocalize his grievances.

[BashiChuni]

'Putin did not order Navalny death,' US intelligence agencies report

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/alexei-navalny-death-us-intelligence-71bc95b0

 

"Reports of his death, if they’re true — and I have no reason to believe they’re not — Russian authorities are going to tell their own story.  But make no mistake — make no mistake, Putin is responsible for Navalny’s death.  Putin is responsible." - Biden

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/02/16/remarks-by-president-biden-on-the-reported-death-of-aleksey-navalny/

 

WSJ saying putin didn't "directly" order his death...a  little grey area, but biden on record saying Putin is responsible.

 

Edited April 27 by BashiChuni

[gearhog]

"The finding is broadly accepted within the intelligence community and shared by several agencies, including the Central Intelligence Agency, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit"

If you can't trust these agencies to prop up your narrative, who can you trust? 🤣

[BashiChuni]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ar-AA1nIxGp

"Ukrainian forces are withdrawing US-provided Abrams M1A1 main battle tanks from the front lines after at least five have been destroyed by cheap Russian drones, according to the AP." <insert lawman calling AP a putin puppet>

"However, the evolving dynamics of warfare, particularly the proliferation of Russian surveillance and hunter-killer drones, have dramatically altered the operational landscape. It turned out that the Abrams were more vulnerable to Russian attacks than previously believed."

 

"The failure of the Abrams to make a difference is a costly miscalculation. The export cost of an Abrams tank can be around $10mn, while Col. Markus Reisner, an Austrian military trainer who follows the weapons being used in Ukraine, told the Euromaidan Press that the Russian suicide drones being used to destroy them can be as cheap as $500 each (a ratio of 20,000:1)."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/ukraine-maps-show-russian-gains-amid-fears-us-aid-too-late/ar-AA1nLVfE?cvid=149b9212c973403096e273627ebf1743&ei=5

 

"Russian forces continue to maintain momentum on the battlefield in Ukraine as maps show Moscow's latest gains amid concerns about whether an aid package for Kyiv just passed by Congress can thwart Moscow's momentum in time." <insert lawman calling MSN a russian disinformation agent>

 

"While welcoming the bill, military analyst Rob Lee, a senior fellow at the Foreign Policy Research Institute (FPRI) said on X, formerly Twitter, that the U.S. assistance may help Kyiv fight in 2024 and into 2025 but Russia will still likely make further gains this year, and "it doesn't fix all of Ukraine's issues."" <Rob Lee is clearly pro putin>

 

"Meanwhile, in analysis for Carnegie Endowment for World Peace, Eugene Rumer, director of the U.S. think tank's Russia and Eurasia program, said Ukraine "has no good options, even with the latest aid package."

"Many military analysts have already come to that conclusion privately but are unwilling to voice that sentiment," he wrote in the commentary published Thursday, adding that the U.S. deal "is almost certainly the last package of such magnitude, regardless of who gets elected as the next U.S. president." <obviously the Carnegie Endowment for world peace is a putin sock puppet>

[BashiChuni]

Ten more years! Ten more years! Ten more years! 👏 

[gearhog]

Don't fall for the propaganda. Ukraine is setting a trap. They're drawing Russia deeper into Ukraine so that in a few months, after our defense contractors have received their funding, established supply chains and increased capacity, they'll begin to produce the much needed weaponry for what's left of the Ukr military. Having baited Russia into occupying more of their territory, they're going to surprise them with a massive offensive. Brilliant! If we're patient, our recent $61B investment is going to pay huge dividends.

 

 

[BashiChuni]

[gearhog]

13 hours ago, BashiChuni said:

David Sacks is quoting Huge Dixon? Gotta be fake news.

I have family in state level politics, and I'm a little involved in this year's campaign. I know my State Rep to the US Congress personally through various events. Legit good dude. He had been staunchly anti-Ukraine funding since the beginning. About 2 months ago, his campaign had an online poll asking what his constituents thought. The poll results weren't published, but the hundreds of comments underneath were greater than 80% against. He flipped on this supplemental aid bill. I called his office twice in the last week. The staffer said he hasn't made any public comment yet and when he does, they'll get back to me. Word on the street he's been compromised and coerced. Not scheduled to attend any events when he returns from DC.

Bear in mind that 79% of the funding for Ukraine isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to defense contractors, and not one of us here knows exactly what we're getting for that amount.  They spent almost $67 million in lobbying Congress in the just the first half of 2023. Most of it going to PACs and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Everyone has a price. Imagine the lobbying they can do with an influx of $49 Billion. It's a massive reward for unethical behavior and if they could overcome the resistance to this last supplemental aid bill, they're going to do it again, and more frequently.

$1 Trillion in wealth is being transferred upwards every 100 days in your name. You are being robbed.

 

Edited April 30 by gearhog

[Lord Ratner]

1 hour ago, gearhog said:

David Sacks is quoting Huge Dixon? Gotta be fake news.

I have family in state level politics, and I'm a little involved in this year's campaign. I know my State Rep to the US Congress personally through various events. Legit good dude. He had been staunchly anti-Ukraine funding since the beginning. About 2 months ago, his campaign had an online poll asking what his constituents thought. The poll results weren't published, but the hundreds of comments underneath were greater than 80% against. He flipped on this supplemental aid bill. I called his office twice in the last week. The staffer said he hasn't made any public comment yet and when he does, they'll get back to me. Word on the street he's been compromised and coerced. Not scheduled to attend any events when he returns from DC.

Bear in mind that 79% of the funding for Ukraine isn't going to Ukraine. It's going to defense contractors, and not one of us here knows exactly what we're getting for that amount.  They spent almost $67 million in lobbying Congress in the just the first half of 2023. Most of it going to PACs and members of the House and Senate Armed Services Committees. Everyone has a price. Imagine the lobbying they can do with an influx of $49 Billion. It's a massive reward for unethical behavior and if they could overcome the resistance to this last supplemental aid bill, they're going to do it again, and more frequently.

$1 Trillion in wealth is being transferred upwards every 100 days in your name. You are being robbed.

 

I think at this point it's safe to say that all sides are paranoid beyond reason.

Speaker Johnson made a really interesting comment in an interview, saying that most of the loudest voices against the Ukraine bill had not yet been in the scif to receive a single classified briefing. Yeah yeah, I know, we can't trust the surveillance State. But anybody who says that is just being reflexively stupid. You can't trust anything outright, but if you really believe that us intelligence is corrupted so thoroughly that it produces no viable information, then you were just as guilty of living in an alternate reality as those who claim the absolute righteousness of funding the Ukraine fight.

I am very open to the counter arguments for supporting Ukraine at this point. But I am not at all interested in hearing it from someone who has gone out of their way to avoid briefings that would give them a full picture.

As to your point about the funding going to defense contractors, that was under the impression that the incredible corruption in Ukraine, which I do believe exists, was such that we could not risk sending them money outright to trust they would use it appropriately. Sending the munitions directly will obviously not completely eliminate corruption, but it's a hell of a lot harder to launder 155 mm shells than it is a pallet of cash.

[Biff_T]

2 hours ago, gearhog said:

Huge Dixon

What a name!   Kinda like Bigus Dickus. 

[gearhog]

2 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

I think at this point it's safe to say that all sides are paranoid beyond reason.

Speaker Johnson made a really interesting comment in an interview, saying that most of the loudest voices against the Ukraine bill had not yet been in the scif to receive a single classified briefing. Yeah yeah, I know, we can't trust the surveillance State. But anybody who says that is just being reflexively stupid. You can't trust anything outright, but if you really believe that us intelligence is corrupted so thoroughly that it produces no viable information, then you were just as guilty of living in an alternate reality as those who claim the absolute righteousness of funding the Ukraine fight.

I am very open to the counter arguments for supporting Ukraine at this point. But I am not at all interested in hearing it from someone who has gone out of their way to avoid briefings that would give them a full picture.

As to your point about the funding going to defense contractors, that was under the impression that the incredible corruption in Ukraine, which I do believe exists, was such that we could not risk sending them money outright to trust they would use it appropriately. Sending the munitions directly will obviously not completely eliminate corruption, but it's a hell of a lot harder to launder 155 mm shells than it is a pallet of cash.

I believe the intelligence service does produce viable information. It is required to. It has to produce some viable and objectively truthful information to protect its existence. But it can also use its implied credibility to lean on the scale. They could call Speaker Johnson in, scare the shit out of him, and he would never be able to refute contents of the classified briefing. If he tried, they'd label him a clown. That's an enormous amount of power. And temptation.

"If you only knew what I knew, you'd be praising me for spending public money and intensifying these conflicts."

Well.. if the threat is that dire, don't I have a right to be briefed on it? After all, it is I who am being indebted and my friends and family who may be ultimately fighting these conflicts?

"Sources and methods. If you were to know, then our enemies would know. Then they might know how we know, and that would threaten our ability to produce the viable, but secret information needed to ensure our continued ability to steer the country's leadership."

How long do they get to use that excuse?

Whatever small amount of blind implicit trust you have left in our intelligence and leadership is being monetized. It's like giving these people your credit card and telling them to charge whatever they want, as long as it keeps you safe. No explanation required. At some point, they gotta look us and say, "Caveat Emptor. These people are morons, they don't deserve to keep their wealth."

 

Edited April 30 by gearhog

[gearhog]

US national security advisor Jake Sullivan says there won't be a Ukrainian counteroffensive until 2025.

The current funding bill was to stop Russia from making additional gains, but he still expects Russian advances in the coming period.  huh??

"Any new offensive in 2025 by Ukraine would be dependent on more funding from Congress, and approval by the White House. "

What a joke. https://www.ft.com/content/6fd11006-01db-4548-96d6-76343f38aea8