the same how you posted a fat joe video and other people posting tweets and not even commenting but somehow i got to have an original opinion with my post. I already stated my stance and im not engaging you, you are trolling all my post like i hurt your feelings.
the same how you posted a fat joe video and other people posting tweets and not even commenting but somehow i got to have an original opinion with my post. I already stated my stance and im not engaging you, you are trolling all my post like i hurt your feelings.
I think Biden is below average at best, but idk what he can really do in this situation. This is a war that no one really wants to be directly involved in.
It’s now a familiar pattern – a sensational news story is dismissed by serious journalists as bogus right-wing agitprop. You’d have to be a swivel-eyed conspiracy theorist to believe that. You don’t want to be one of those. Then, a year or so later, the same important media organs, the same...
I think Biden is below average at best, but idk what he can really do in this situation. This is a war that no one really wants to be directly involved in.
I think Biden is doing a decent job so far, but you're right. Ain't much he can do in this situation nor any other president that would be in this position other than Putin's lapdog. If lapdog was still in the white house, he'd ******* be trying to have us sympathize with Russia.
Props whether you intended or not. This goes for most NT from all sides. A lot of ignorant fools. And I’m not gonna argue with NT group think propaganda that doesn’t realize they are stooges too, no matter how cool/woke they think they are. But after a 90 hr work week ending with a few beers this is for you NT Putinboys… you know who you are…
John Wick
surprised you didn’t post this. It’s from one of your favorites. Grayzone. Aaron Mate and his crew, out here lying and saying the bombings are fake
“It is clear from numerous declassified US government and CIA documents that the United States has had a long-term strategic interest in Ukraine, reaching back to the early 1950s. Ukraine is essential to Russian strategic and geopolitical interests in eastern Europe, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean. Thus, the US has correctly identified it as the soft underbelly of Russia. NATO eastward expansion, US encirclement, and CIA covert operations both in Ukraine and in the United States have been directed towards provoking Russia to act and so trap Moscow in a long and bloody insurgency. To this end, the US’ most important weapon has been propaganda; with Russia’s leader monsterised even before the conflict began, with the explosion of anti-Russian articles and opinion pieces, and with the liberal use of ‘black propaganda’ in the use of such CIA instruments as Radio Free Europe, the US has prepared the group for mass public support for an ‘intervention’ against Russia. This calibre of propaganda has been evident on the ground in Ukraine with one example being that of the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry using the Ukrainian shelling of Donetsk as evidence of Russia attacking civilian targets.
Russia and Ukraine have lived side by side for over three decades without Russia invading. Ukrainian neutrality has, since the dissolution of the Soviet Union, guaranteed peace between these two states. Yet, US government involvement — including clandestine involvement — in the Orange Revolution and the 2014 Maidan coup have revealed Washington’s intention to push for a war with Russia over a wholly manufactured and unnecessary conflict in Ukraine. With the US pressing for this war — as was shown in 2008 when, against French and German advice, the US invited Ukraine and Georgia to join the NATO alliance in breach of the 1991 NATO-Soviet agreement — it is hard to see how exactly it can be stopped without the US ending its interference in the region.”
Alaska lawmakers responded to a Russian official who called for the United States to return Alaska: "We have hundreds of thousands of armed Alaskans."
www.yahoo.com
Russian parliament member Oleg Matveychev on a TV program addressed waves of sanctions against Russia in response to the country’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, saying leaders should “think about reparations.”
“The harm these sanctions caused us cost money. Return of possessions, including possessions of the Russian Empire, Soviet Union and even parts of Russia that are now occupied by the United States,” Matveychev said on Sunday, according to the Anchorage Daily News.
“This is my next point – recognizing Alaska, Fort Ross and Antarctica,” Matveychev responded, according to the Anchorage Daily News. “We actually discovered it, so it rightfully belongs to us.”
It is clear from numerous declassified US government and CIA documents that the United States has had a long-term strategic interest in Ukraine, reaching back to the early 1950s. Ukraine is essential to Russian strategic and geopolitical interests in eastern Europe, the Black Sea, and the Mediterranean. Thus, the US has correctly identified it as the soft underbelly of Russia. NATO eastward expansion, US encirclement, and CIA covert operations both in Ukraine and in the United States have been directed towards provoking Russia to act and so trap Moscow in a long and bloody insurgency
This is some grade A, ahistorical ********. It completely ignores the purpose of NATO, the historical relationship between Russia and its neighbors, and who actually made moves to join the organization.
More ********.
So Putin didn't invade Georgia in 2008, validating the fears of the former Soviet nations that joined NATO in 1997?
What about taking part of the territory of Ukraine in 2014?
Putin fought two bloody wars in Chechnya, where his troops didn't hesitate to flatten the capital of the republic, Grozny.
How about the airliner that was downed by Russian separatists in 2014?
Or the assassinations of Russian critics and defectors on foreign soil that western countries ignored for the sake of maintaining relations with Russia?
How about placing bounties on US troops in Syria? (Conveniently slid under the rug too)
Did the CIA make Putin rewrite the Russian constitution in 2020 to allow him to remain president by resetting presidential term limits? How about the game of political musical chairs he and Medvedev have been playing since 2000 (president to prime minister back to president and vice-versa)?
The truth is, the only way Putin wasn't going to be demonized is if he was kept out of the news coverage entirely.
This agreement had to do with NATO's presence on the territory of Eastern Germany during the Soviet troop withdrawal. It had nothing to do with the size or direction of NATO.
Two days before Russia invaded Ukraine with an assault that intelligence officials had warned was coming, conservative c
www.politifact.com
IF YOUR TIME IS SHORT
No legal agreement prohibits NATO from expanding eastward.
Russians have argued that comments made by U.S. and other Western leaders during the negotiations over the reunification of Germany constituted a promise that NATO would not extend beyond then-East Germany. Those allegations have sparked decades of debate amongst those involved in the events, and scholars studying them.
Even scholars who say they believe western powers did offer the Soviet Union assurances about NATO expansion say Owens’ claim is misleading.
Russian President Vladimir Putin has made it well known his antipathy towards NATO, claiming the Alliance took advantage of Russian weakness after the collapse of the Soviet Union in violation of promises allegedly made to Moscow by Western leaders. Steven Pifer argues that no such promises were...
www.brookings.edu
Russia behind the Headlines has published an interview with Gorbachev, who was Soviet president during the discussions and treaty negotiations concerning German reunification. The interviewer asked why Gorbachev did not “insist that the promises made to you [Gorbachev]—particularly U.S. Secretary of State James Baker’s promise that NATO would not expand into the East—be legally encoded?” Gorbachev replied: “The topic of ‘NATO expansion’ was not discussed at all, and it wasn’t brought up in those years. … Another issue we brought up was discussed: making sure that NATO’s military structures would not advance and that additional armed forces would not be deployed on the territory of the then-GDR after German reunification. Baker’s statement was made in that context… Everything that could have been and needed to be done to solidify that political obligation was done. And fulfilled.”
Gorbachev continued that “The agreement on a final settlement with Germany said that no new military structures would be created in the eastern part of the country; no additional troops would be deployed; no weapons of mass destruction would be placed there. It has been obeyed all these years.” To be sure, the former Soviet president criticized NATO enlargement and called it a violation of the spirit of the assurances given Moscow in 1990, but he made clear there was no promise regarding broader enlargement.
Several years after German reunification, in 1997, NATO said that in the “current and foreseeable security environment” there would be no permanent stationing of substantial combat forces on the territory of new NATO members. Up until the Russian military occupation of Crimea in March, there was virtually no stationing of any NATO combat forces on the territory of new members. Since March [2014], NATO has increased the presence of its military forces in the Baltic region and Central Europe.
In 1998, the British analyst Michael MccGwire wrote an article strongly
opposing NATO’s decision in 1997 to invite the Czech Republic, Hungary,
and Poland to join the alliance. MccGwire claimed that ‘‘in 1990 Mikhail
Gorbachev was given top-level assurances that the West would not enlarge
NATO, ensuring a non-aligned buffer zone between NATO’s eastern border
and Russia.’’ The U.S.-led decision to expand the alliance, MccGwire argued,
‘‘violates the bargain struck in 1990 allowing a united Germany to be part of
NATO.’’43 His article was republished a decade later in another journal, whose
editors hoped that it would help readers understand Russia’s invasion of the
former Soviet republic of Georgia in August 2008.44 That invasion, the
argument went, was designed not only to thwart Georgia’s bid for NATO
membership, but also to exact revenge against NATO itself for having
violated the ‘‘top-level assurances’’ that were supposedly given in 1990 to
Gorbachev. When MccGwire originally published his article in 1998, most of the records
pertaining to the negotiations on the ‘‘external’’ aspects of German reunification
were not yet accessible. But by the time his article was republished, those records
had finally been released. The declassified evidence undermines MccGwire’s
contention that ‘‘top-level assurances’’ were provided to Gorbachev in 1990
‘‘ensuring a non-aligned buffer zone between NATO’s eastern border and
Russia.’’ No such assurances were ever given or sought. Gorbachev did for a long
while seek assurances that Germany would be kept out of NATO, but he failed
to receive them. The West German and U.S. governments stuck by their
position that Germany should be a full member of NATO and the Soviet leader
ultimately backed down on the issue.