oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

For 70 years the CIA has been working to undermine and occupy Ukraine to bring down Russia using such things as paramilitaries, right wing Nazi groups, corrupt politicians and businessmen, coups, and warfare in the eastern Ukraine region of the Donbass.pic.twitter.com/ccAbV9w6yk

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) December 31, 2025

---

There are hundreds of thousands of people on X and on online who will not believe this claim either because they think the CIA is involved is some conspiracy, or because they have convinced themselves that any expert opinion or actual evidence must be rejected out of hand… https://t.co/TovNg041oL

— Kim R. Holmes (@kimsmithholmes) January 1, 2026

---

Assistant secretary of state under George W. Bush, who conducted the previous fake U.S. regime change war.

---

Quote:

---

I can't help it if the neocons happen to be right about Russia in this case while you morons lap up everything Putin wants you to believe. Just how it goes sometimes.

---

---

At the point where you start to write sentences like "neocons happen to be right" is a good time to start questioning when your beliefs are wrong. At least for normal people who have values like opposing the war against Iraq.

---

Oh trust me, I do question it, just like I questioned Iraq back in the day. I just don't think they're wrong in this case. I can accept when people I don't like are right about a particular subject.

You seem to have problems doing this.

---

Do you accept that Mearsheimer was right 11 years ago.

The best advice to solve the Russia-Ukraine Conflict was given by John J. Mearsheimer in 2015 which nobody listened:

"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked" pic.twitter.com/DQuTithfYm

— Richard (@ricwe123) February 11, 2023

---

He is right about some things, in a broad sense. Some of his criticism of American and/or Western policy towards Ukraine is fair.

But he also said that Putin "did not have any intention of invading Ukraine" about a week before they did so. See comments here starting at around 1:50:

---

You're discrediting your own thesis here, Mearsheimer nailed it!

He clearly stated at the 1:50 mark that Putin had no intention of invading Ukraine, but "he nevertheless understood that there might be circumstances under which that might be necessary where Russians would intervene if Ukraine attacked the Russian-supported forces in the Donbas, he would come to their assistance, and that would probably involve a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine".

---

Except that it wasn't just a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. That was the fallback position. The original invasion was attempting to topple the government in Kiev. That failed, and was not a thing Mearsheimer thought Putin would do. He was wrong about that.

---

Tedious nitpicking, even by your own standards.

---

No, because it speaks to Putin's motivations. He doesn't just want some territory in the east. He wants all of Ukraine. Either for Russia to absorb it or (more likely) for it to be a compliant satellite a la Belarus. This is a regime change war. Unless you can understand that these are Putin's aims there will be no understanding the war.





Hey this guy is pretty sharp about this whole topic in general! And he was much more correct about what would happen than Mearsheimer was . . . before the war started, he said that Russia would invade and also that it wouldn't go well for them. How long are they into this "special military operation" again?

---

It is hard for Russia to simply hire Nazis for a regime change because the CIA already did that.

---

I don't believe this is true, but I've given up on trying to convince you people of that.

---

I do believe this is true, and I haven't given up on trying to convince you of that.

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

oski003 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Cal88 said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

For 70 years the CIA has been working to undermine and occupy Ukraine to bring down Russia using such things as paramilitaries, right wing Nazi groups, corrupt politicians and businessmen, coups, and warfare in the eastern Ukraine region of the Donbass.pic.twitter.com/ccAbV9w6yk

— Ignorance, the root and stem of all evil (@ivan_8848) December 31, 2025

---

There are hundreds of thousands of people on X and on online who will not believe this claim either because they think the CIA is involved is some conspiracy, or because they have convinced themselves that any expert opinion or actual evidence must be rejected out of hand… https://t.co/TovNg041oL

— Kim R. Holmes (@kimsmithholmes) January 1, 2026

---

Assistant secretary of state under George W. Bush, who conducted the previous fake U.S. regime change war.

---

Quote:

---

I can't help it if the neocons happen to be right about Russia in this case while you morons lap up everything Putin wants you to believe. Just how it goes sometimes.

---

---

At the point where you start to write sentences like "neocons happen to be right" is a good time to start questioning when your beliefs are wrong. At least for normal people who have values like opposing the war against Iraq.

---

Oh trust me, I do question it, just like I questioned Iraq back in the day. I just don't think they're wrong in this case. I can accept when people I don't like are right about a particular subject.

You seem to have problems doing this.

---

Do you accept that Mearsheimer was right 11 years ago.

The best advice to solve the Russia-Ukraine Conflict was given by John J. Mearsheimer in 2015 which nobody listened:

"The West is leading Ukraine down the primrose path and the end result is that Ukraine is going to get wrecked" pic.twitter.com/DQuTithfYm

— Richard (@ricwe123) February 11, 2023

---

He is right about some things, in a broad sense. Some of his criticism of American and/or Western policy towards Ukraine is fair.

But he also said that Putin "did not have any intention of invading Ukraine" about a week before they did so. See comments here starting at around 1:50:

---

You're discrediting your own thesis here, Mearsheimer nailed it!

He clearly stated at the 1:50 mark that Putin had no intention of invading Ukraine, but "he nevertheless understood that there might be circumstances under which that might be necessary where Russians would intervene if Ukraine attacked the Russian-supported forces in the Donbas, he would come to their assistance, and that would probably involve a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine".

---

Except that it wasn't just a Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine. That was the fallback position. The original invasion was attempting to topple the government in Kiev. That failed, and was not a thing Mearsheimer thought Putin would do. He was wrong about that.

---

Tedious nitpicking, even by your own standards.

---

No, because it speaks to Putin's motivations. He doesn't just want some territory in the east. He wants all of Ukraine. Either for Russia to absorb it or (more likely) for it to be a compliant satellite a la Belarus. This is a regime change war. Unless you can understand that these are Putin's aims there will be no understanding the war.





Hey this guy is pretty sharp about this whole topic in general! And he was much more correct about what would happen than Mearsheimer was . . . before the war started, he said that Russia would invade and also that it wouldn't go well for them. How long are they into this "special military operation" again?

---

It is hard for Russia to simply hire Nazis for a regime change because the CIA already did that.

---

I don't believe this is true, but I've given up on trying to convince you people of that.

---

You're really showing your lack of knowledge, or perhaps more accurately, your reliance on incredibly biased sources, WRT this very basic item. OUN/UPA nazis have been propped up by NATO, metastasizing into the cult of Bandera today, all for the purpose of grooming Ukraine to undermine Russia.

Watching Furd-Lville and getting ready for the ND game tonight, but if you'd like I can produce the receipts to the paragraph above later on.

---

movielover said:

---

So Victoria Nuland was just washing dishes over there, dozens of bio weapons labs are nothing, as were 12 CIA bases on Russia's border?

---

Aunburdened said:

---

According to the New York Times opinion age, the US ouster of a key Russian ally in Venezuela as part of an effort to control the country's oil "Plays Right Into Putin’s Hands."

Under BlueAnon logic, even when Putin loses a key ally, he still wins. The guy can't lose. And… pic.twitter.com/BKRxSPIbrc

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 5, 2026

---

NYT headline: "Russia Once Offered U.S. Control of Venezuela for Free Rein in Ukraine."

How was this offer conveyed? According to NYT's lone source, Fiona Hill: "The proposals were informal, through commentators and newspaper articles."

So there was no offer. Just random… pic.twitter.com/fPJbl40HSq

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 6, 2026

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

According to the New York Times opinion age, the US ouster of a key Russian ally in Venezuela as part of an effort to control the country's oil "Plays Right Into Putin’s Hands."

Under BlueAnon logic, even when Putin loses a key ally, he still wins. The guy can't lose. And… pic.twitter.com/BKRxSPIbrc

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 5, 2026

---

I checked the article. I agree with part of it, that Trump's invasion of Venezuela is a clear violation of a rules-based international order and that furthering this kind of foreign policy basically endorses the kind of world that authoritarians like Putin would like to live in.

I don't necessarily agree that this particularly "emboldens" Putin, because . . . well, Putin already quite brazenly broke from the rules-based order when he invaded Ukraine, and he hasn't demonstrated any ability to go further than a broken-down stalemate there. Emboldened to do what? The US easily taking out one of his allies means Russia looks weak. Maybe you could argue that this emboldens China to be more imperialist in their part of the world, but that ain't the headline here.

---

The "rules based international order" is a joke. What rules were we following in either of the two Bush family Iraq wars? Or even the Afghanistan war? None of those countries attacked us. Powerful nations do what they want to do and quote bull**** like international law and the rules based order when another powerful nation does something they don't like. Meanwhile, we supply bombs to Israel to commit genocide. That's the real world, not the made-up world that politicians and journalists would have you believe exists.

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

According to the New York Times opinion age, the US ouster of a key Russian ally in Venezuela as part of an effort to control the country's oil "Plays Right Into Putin’s Hands."

Under BlueAnon logic, even when Putin loses a key ally, he still wins. The guy can't lose. And… pic.twitter.com/BKRxSPIbrc

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 5, 2026

---

I checked the article. I agree with part of it, that Trump's invasion of Venezuela is a clear violation of a rules-based international order and that furthering this kind of foreign policy basically endorses the kind of world that authoritarians like Putin would like to live in.

I don't necessarily agree that this particularly "emboldens" Putin, because . . . well, Putin already quite brazenly broke from the rules-based order when he invaded Ukraine, and he hasn't demonstrated any ability to go further than a broken-down stalemate there. Emboldened to do what? The US easily taking out one of his allies means Russia looks weak. Maybe you could argue that this emboldens China to be more imperialist in their part of the world, but that ain't the headline here.

---

The "rules based international order" is a joke. What rules were we following in either of the two Bush family Iraq wars? Or even the Afghanistan war? None of those countries attacked us. Powerful nations do what they want to do and quote bull**** like international law and the rules based order when another powerful nation does something they don't like. Meanwhile, we supply bombs to Israel to commit genocide. That's the real world, not the made-up world that politicians and journalists would have you believe exists.

---

Oh, I agree that it had been broken before but it was bad those times and it's also bad now.

---

MinotStateBeav said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Aunburdened said:

---

According to the New York Times opinion age, the US ouster of a key Russian ally in Venezuela as part of an effort to control the country's oil "Plays Right Into Putin’s Hands."

Under BlueAnon logic, even when Putin loses a key ally, he still wins. The guy can't lose. And… pic.twitter.com/BKRxSPIbrc

— Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) January 5, 2026

---

I checked the article. I agree with part of it, that Trump's invasion of Venezuela is a clear violation of a rules-based international order and that furthering this kind of foreign policy basically endorses the kind of world that authoritarians like Putin would like to live in.

I don't necessarily agree that this particularly "emboldens" Putin, because . . . well, Putin already quite brazenly broke from the rules-based order when he invaded Ukraine, and he hasn't demonstrated any ability to go further than a broken-down stalemate there. Emboldened to do what? The US easily taking out one of his allies means Russia looks weak. Maybe you could argue that this emboldens China to be more imperialist in their part of the world, but that ain't the headline here.

---

The "rules based international order" is a joke. What rules were we following in either of the two Bush family Iraq wars? Or even the Afghanistan war? None of those countries attacked us. Powerful nations do what they want to do and quote bull**** like international law and the rules based order when another powerful nation does something they don't like. Meanwhile, we supply bombs to Israel to commit genocide. That's the real world, not the made-up world that politicians and journalists would have you believe exists.

---

Oh, I agree that it had been broken before but it was bad those times and it's also bad now.

---

Not for the american people, its good for us and the Venezuelans seem rather perked up too.

---

BREAKING: The UK, France and Ukraine have just signed a Declaration of Intent to deploy forces to Ukraine in event of a peace deal

The ‘Multinational Force for Ukraine’ will act as a reassurance force to bolster security guarantees

The signing of the declaration paves the way…

— Alex Wickham (@alexwickham) January 6, 2026

BearlySane88 said:

---

So this guarantees no peace deal then

---