Russia Crisis

User Name

Greatest poster ever
On CNN Friday, former CIA director and retired Gen. David Petraeus said that Russia is facing a bleak situation in Ukraine:

"Well, again, full mobilization is too late, and beyond that they've stripped their base, they don't have the replacement vehicles, the export sanctions on microchips to Russia have crushed their industrial base and so forth," said Petraeus. "The consideration of tactical nuclear weapons, yes ... but it doesn't change the fundamental realities, which are that Russia just cannot generate the forces, much less employ them capably and competently. Their morale is rock-bottom, they are not even sure what they're fighting for other than a paycheck or perhaps to stay out of jail. The morale on the Ukrainian side is sky-high, they're winning."

"Russia is in, again, a truly disastrous situation at this point in time," said Petraeus. "And crossing the nuclear threshold would be so profound and the benefit of that would not be as profound. So I think, again, he's in a very difficult position. He's going to try to change the narrative, blame others and all the rest of this and find some way to explain why the special operation has failed."

 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
America will retaliate with 'a devastating strike' against Russia's military if Vladimir Putin uses nuclear weapons in Ukraine, the United States Army's former European commander has warned:

Putin is too sly to fall for such a stupid temptation. Who would benefit the most? The USA and the military industrial complex. Therefore, the more likely event would be the USA exploding a nuke and blaming it on Russia. Much like antifa committing violence on January 6th and blaming it on Trump supporters. This is standard operating procedure for the left.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Putin ordered the Russian military invasion of Ukraine, which has proven to be a stupid temptation. Now he's escalating it, which is even stupider.

Putin is a moron.
Perhaps, but that doesn't mean the US is too moral, holy and righteous to ever consider executing a false flag.
 

Jefferson

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Super Moderator
Didn't mean to say that it was. But the fact remains that Republicans did 9/11. You agree with that, correct?

Who knows the whole story behind 9/11?

Regarding the current conflict, I don’t see Republican vs Democrat. I see nationalists vs internationalists.
 

7djengo7

Well-known member
Don't know if anyone here has seen this. A while back, I bagged a used copy of this guy's book at a thrift store, because it looked potentially interesting at a glance. It was published in 2017, if I remember right. I haven't really gotten around to reading it yet, but I just got the notion to see if I could find, online, any sort of interview with the author...kind of with a notion of getting something of a thumbnail glimpse or preview of what his book might cover. So, I happened to find this video, which was published a month ago:


From what I've seen, and to say the least, it looks as though the author, Dan Kovalik, is not someone seeking to be thought of as any sort of admirer or champion of Trump. Interesting stuff.
 

7djengo7

Well-known member
I see nationalists vs internationalists.

I like to think of it in terms of nationalists vs anti-nationalists. I figure that anti-nationalists would ordinarily not be all too eager to try to market their aims by overtly calling themselves "anti-nationalists," but would prefer, rather, to paint a nicer, "I'd like to teach the world to sing" sort of picture of themselves, choosing a less combative-sounding name like "internationalists". Of course, if we look at the inter- of "internationalists" in the sense of "place (a corpse) in a grave or tomb, typically with funeral rites," then I suppose that "internationalists" may well be just about the most apt term one could wish for for the purpose of accurate labeling.
 

TomO

Get used to it.
Hall of Fame
I like to think of it in terms of nationalists vs anti-nationalists. I figure that anti-nationalists would ordinarily not be all too eager to try to market their aims by overtly calling themselves "anti-nationalists," but would prefer, rather, to paint a nicer, "I'd like to teach the world to sing" sort of picture of themselves, choosing a less combative-sounding name like "internationalists". Of course, if we look at the inter- of "internationalists" in the sense of "place (a corpse) in a grave or tomb, typically with funeral rites," then I suppose that "internationalists" may well be just about the most apt term one could wish for for the purpose of accurate labeling.
I prefer "globalist", myself. :unsure:
 
Top