Ukrainian victory over Russia is inevitable

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that there are zero Ukrainian living Nazis? Just wanted to confirm.

Your argument is that if there is a Nazi in Ukraine, regardless that the country's president is Jewish, it's justification for Russia to commit war crimes, rape, pillage, execute prisoners, kidnap children, assassinate journalists and opposition leaders?

The question you have to ask yourself is why didn't Putin ask Zelensky (a Jew) to look into any Nazi issues a year ago? But a year ago, wasn't the invasion supposed to have been about 'protecting Russians in Donbass'?

It may be better for you to stop parroting Russian propaganda and making a decision whether this is what you support:

"Russian forces had set up a mobile crematorium outside of Tokmak"
"Locals complain of a constant corpse stench in the southeastern part of the city, especially at night,"
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-army-burning-their-own-dead-hide-massive-losses-ukraine-says-1780266

“Twenty-one mobile crematoriums have been ordered by the Russian leadership in China,”
“Putin has been informed that the order is ready and will be delivered to Russia via third countries in the near future.”
"It claimed that the Russian dictator "is not embarrassed by the colossal losses” from the war he inflicted on Europe - but the scale is “disturbing” to ordinary people. As a result, according to the president, the losses must be ‘smeared over time’, and the crematoriums have been ordered for this.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-orders-21-mobile-28994545

"In Kursk and Rostov-on-Don, the Russians are building large-scale facilities for sorting, analyzing, and storing the corpses"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-builds-gigantic-facilities-sorting-102900309.html

“Crematoriums are growing exponentially in Russia,”
"the 33 crematoriums currently operating in Russia are unable to meet surging demand."
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/01/27/russias-funeral-industry-booms-amid-heavy-war-losses-a80062

Stop being a stooge for a corrupt government driving your country into extinction. Just stop.

Wartime leaders gloss over losses. That's not new. Zelensky never acknowledged, for instance, just how many casualties Bakhmut has claimed, for no good reason. Just like when he told G7 that "right now, there is nothing there but dead Russians". Omitting to add that there were just as many of his own dead countrymen. Fighting with 1920-era machinery.

Guessing you missed the posts about Ukraine getting Western tanks and will be given F-16's? May want to scroll back and read from about page 90'ish and catch up. Also, it was the Russians who were mostly fighting with the 1920's era gear.

Take it up with Luke Mogelson, dear. He's the one who wrote it.

To your other screeds, I will repeat: Ukraine has never made their military losses public.

Isn't Russia still claiming only 16,000 losses in this "3-day Special Operation" despite reality being far closer to 200,000 dead and permanently disabled Russian troops?

And screwing all of the families of dead mobiks, the dead sons of mothers, the dead grandsons of babusas, the fathers of children, the dead husbands of wives, all cheated out of the pay and promises because Russia lied to them and told them he is still alive and fighting or that he went awol when in fact he's either a corpse sitting unclaimed in a refrigerated rail car-turned-morgue or rotting and half buried on a hillside in eastern Ukraine where he was left there by his fellow choloviks

Shrug. Did you read Mogelson's reporting that Ukraine's army is made of mostly working class, rural, poorly educated boys? Since the middleclass and the educated had the wherewithal to either flee or buy their way out? It's not that different you know. .

There's a big difference between the "working class rural boys" of Ukraine compared to the rural boys of Russia. Many of Russia's fighters come from far flung places like Dagestan and Ingushetia where they don't even have paved roads or indoor plumbing. And Ukraine's boys are fighting because they know their survival is at stake, their morale is high, as opposed to many of the Russian mobiks who are just in it for a few dollars and don't understand what the purpose is.

I see. So why are there no middleclass educated boys in their army? Isn't their morale high as well?

Dagestan and Ingushetia aren't far flung at all.

There are plenty of educated, middle class Ukrainians serving. Who do you think keeps coming up with innovative drone tactics and other things that have miliitary tacticians around the world sitting up and taking notes? Why do you think Ukraine has been so much better at combined arms and coordinated attacks than Russia has? Why do you think Ukraine has been able to integrate and adapt foreign weapons systems so much more quickly than anticipated?

You’re describing an imaginary war and an imaginary army.

+1 PP is clueless and detached from reality.

Yes it would make too much sense and go against your republican narrative. Its sad watching conservatives sheep rally around Putin now that Fox and trump have been shown for what they are. Sheep are always unthinking followers.

You are just as angry about anyone who goes against YOUR narrative. You're just convinced that your narrative is true and theirs isn't. But guess what - so are they!

Okay Marjorie. Try to keep your anger under control. Run back to your flock over a Fox and the Aryan Republican Army or whatever group you are a member of today. Bleats, grunts, rumbles, snorts and hoof stamping. May the flock tell you what to think. I know it gives you comfort to follow. Sheep.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Main administrative building of Shebekino, Belgorod Russia is on fire.

Looks like the UA has stopped trying to win the war and has moved on to the insurgency phase.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that there are zero Ukrainian living Nazis? Just wanted to confirm.

Your argument is that if there is a Nazi in Ukraine, regardless that the country's president is Jewish, it's justification for Russia to commit war crimes, rape, pillage, execute prisoners, kidnap children, assassinate journalists and opposition leaders?

The question you have to ask yourself is why didn't Putin ask Zelensky (a Jew) to look into any Nazi issues a year ago? But a year ago, wasn't the invasion supposed to have been about 'protecting Russians in Donbass'?

It may be better for you to stop parroting Russian propaganda and making a decision whether this is what you support:

"Russian forces had set up a mobile crematorium outside of Tokmak"
"Locals complain of a constant corpse stench in the southeastern part of the city, especially at night,"
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-army-burning-their-own-dead-hide-massive-losses-ukraine-says-1780266

“Twenty-one mobile crematoriums have been ordered by the Russian leadership in China,”
“Putin has been informed that the order is ready and will be delivered to Russia via third countries in the near future.”
"It claimed that the Russian dictator "is not embarrassed by the colossal losses” from the war he inflicted on Europe - but the scale is “disturbing” to ordinary people. As a result, according to the president, the losses must be ‘smeared over time’, and the crematoriums have been ordered for this.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-orders-21-mobile-28994545

"In Kursk and Rostov-on-Don, the Russians are building large-scale facilities for sorting, analyzing, and storing the corpses"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-builds-gigantic-facilities-sorting-102900309.html

“Crematoriums are growing exponentially in Russia,”
"the 33 crematoriums currently operating in Russia are unable to meet surging demand."
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/01/27/russias-funeral-industry-booms-amid-heavy-war-losses-a80062

Stop being a stooge for a corrupt government driving your country into extinction. Just stop.

Wartime leaders gloss over losses. That's not new. Zelensky never acknowledged, for instance, just how many casualties Bakhmut has claimed, for no good reason. Just like when he told G7 that "right now, there is nothing there but dead Russians". Omitting to add that there were just as many of his own dead countrymen. Fighting with 1920-era machinery.

Guessing you missed the posts about Ukraine getting Western tanks and will be given F-16's? May want to scroll back and read from about page 90'ish and catch up. Also, it was the Russians who were mostly fighting with the 1920's era gear.

Take it up with Luke Mogelson, dear. He's the one who wrote it.

To your other screeds, I will repeat: Ukraine has never made their military losses public.

Isn't Russia still claiming only 16,000 losses in this "3-day Special Operation" despite reality being far closer to 200,000 dead and permanently disabled Russian troops?

And screwing all of the families of dead mobiks, the dead sons of mothers, the dead grandsons of babusas, the fathers of children, the dead husbands of wives, all cheated out of the pay and promises because Russia lied to them and told them he is still alive and fighting or that he went awol when in fact he's either a corpse sitting unclaimed in a refrigerated rail car-turned-morgue or rotting and half buried on a hillside in eastern Ukraine where he was left there by his fellow choloviks

Shrug. Did you read Mogelson's reporting that Ukraine's army is made of mostly working class, rural, poorly educated boys? Since the middleclass and the educated had the wherewithal to either flee or buy their way out? It's not that different you know. .

There's a big difference between the "working class rural boys" of Ukraine compared to the rural boys of Russia. Many of Russia's fighters come from far flung places like Dagestan and Ingushetia where they don't even have paved roads or indoor plumbing. And Ukraine's boys are fighting because they know their survival is at stake, their morale is high, as opposed to many of the Russian mobiks who are just in it for a few dollars and don't understand what the purpose is.

I see. So why are there no middleclass educated boys in their army? Isn't their morale high as well?

Dagestan and Ingushetia aren't far flung at all.

There are plenty of educated, middle class Ukrainians serving. Who do you think keeps coming up with innovative drone tactics and other things that have miliitary tacticians around the world sitting up and taking notes? Why do you think Ukraine has been so much better at combined arms and coordinated attacks than Russia has? Why do you think Ukraine has been able to integrate and adapt foreign weapons systems so much more quickly than anticipated?

You’re describing an imaginary war and an imaginary army.

+1 PP is clueless and detached from reality.

Yes it would make too much sense and go against your republican narrative. Its sad watching conservatives sheep rally around Putin now that Fox and trump have been shown for what they are. Sheep are always unthinking followers.

You are just as angry about anyone who goes against YOUR narrative. You're just convinced that your narrative is true and theirs isn't. But guess what - so are they!

Okay Marjorie. Try to keep your anger under control. Run back to your flock over a Fox and the Aryan Republican Army or whatever group you are a member of today. Bleats, grunts, rumbles, snorts and hoof stamping. May the flock tell you what to think. I know it gives you comfort to follow. Sheep.

LOL compelling beyond belief.

[Anonymous]

An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

[Anonymous]

https://apnews.com/article/tanks-ukraine-russia-milley-training-abrams-counteroffensive-2aabcb81c71b78aa96cfeef54b70e8fd

Tanks and F-16s won't be available for the "imminent" counter-offensive apparently.

Is this the start of the rug-pull for Ukraine?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:https://apnews.com/article/tanks-ukraine-russia-milley-training-abrams-counteroffensive-2aabcb81c71b78aa96cfeef54b70e8fd

Tanks and F-16s won't be available for the "imminent" counter-offensive apparently.

Is this the start of the rug-pull for Ukraine?

That's reality knocking on the door.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

Not surprising given the source is "Responsible Statecraft" (funded by both Koch network and Soros). It's a 'barking dog' (distraction) outfit who published "How to get to a place of peace for Ukraine" March 3, 2022 (just after the Russians invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th). For years they seemed to push for complacency / appeasement themes, under the notion that you can horse trade freedom and lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/11/some-questions-about-quincy-institute/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Main administrative building of Shebekino, Belgorod Russia is on fire.

Looks like the UA has stopped trying to win the war and has moved on to the insurgency phase.

Those are Russian nationals fighting Putin's troops in Belgorod. Russia now has its own insurgency regardless of Ukraine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Are you saying that there are zero Ukrainian living Nazis? Just wanted to confirm.

Your argument is that if there is a Nazi in Ukraine, regardless that the country's president is Jewish, it's justification for Russia to commit war crimes, rape, pillage, execute prisoners, kidnap children, assassinate journalists and opposition leaders?

The question you have to ask yourself is why didn't Putin ask Zelensky (a Jew) to look into any Nazi issues a year ago? But a year ago, wasn't the invasion supposed to have been about 'protecting Russians in Donbass'?

It may be better for you to stop parroting Russian propaganda and making a decision whether this is what you support:

"Russian forces had set up a mobile crematorium outside of Tokmak"
"Locals complain of a constant corpse stench in the southeastern part of the city, especially at night,"
https://www.newsweek.com/russian-army-burning-their-own-dead-hide-massive-losses-ukraine-says-1780266

“Twenty-one mobile crematoriums have been ordered by the Russian leadership in China,”
“Putin has been informed that the order is ready and will be delivered to Russia via third countries in the near future.”
"It claimed that the Russian dictator "is not embarrassed by the colossal losses” from the war he inflicted on Europe - but the scale is “disturbing” to ordinary people. As a result, according to the president, the losses must be ‘smeared over time’, and the crematoriums have been ordered for this.”
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news/vladimir-putin-orders-21-mobile-28994545

"In Kursk and Rostov-on-Don, the Russians are building large-scale facilities for sorting, analyzing, and storing the corpses"
https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-builds-gigantic-facilities-sorting-102900309.html

“Crematoriums are growing exponentially in Russia,”
"the 33 crematoriums currently operating in Russia are unable to meet surging demand."
https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2023/01/27/russias-funeral-industry-booms-amid-heavy-war-losses-a80062

Stop being a stooge for a corrupt government driving your country into extinction. Just stop.

Wartime leaders gloss over losses. That's not new. Zelensky never acknowledged, for instance, just how many casualties Bakhmut has claimed, for no good reason. Just like when he told G7 that "right now, there is nothing there but dead Russians". Omitting to add that there were just as many of his own dead countrymen. Fighting with 1920-era machinery.

Guessing you missed the posts about Ukraine getting Western tanks and will be given F-16's? May want to scroll back and read from about page 90'ish and catch up. Also, it was the Russians who were mostly fighting with the 1920's era gear.

Take it up with Luke Mogelson, dear. He's the one who wrote it.

To your other screeds, I will repeat: Ukraine has never made their military losses public.

Isn't Russia still claiming only 16,000 losses in this "3-day Special Operation" despite reality being far closer to 200,000 dead and permanently disabled Russian troops?

And screwing all of the families of dead mobiks, the dead sons of mothers, the dead grandsons of babusas, the fathers of children, the dead husbands of wives, all cheated out of the pay and promises because Russia lied to them and told them he is still alive and fighting or that he went awol when in fact he's either a corpse sitting unclaimed in a refrigerated rail car-turned-morgue or rotting and half buried on a hillside in eastern Ukraine where he was left there by his fellow choloviks

Shrug. Did you read Mogelson's reporting that Ukraine's army is made of mostly working class, rural, poorly educated boys? Since the middleclass and the educated had the wherewithal to either flee or buy their way out? It's not that different you know. .

There's a big difference between the "working class rural boys" of Ukraine compared to the rural boys of Russia. Many of Russia's fighters come from far flung places like Dagestan and Ingushetia where they don't even have paved roads or indoor plumbing. And Ukraine's boys are fighting because they know their survival is at stake, their morale is high, as opposed to many of the Russian mobiks who are just in it for a few dollars and don't understand what the purpose is.

I see. So why are there no middleclass educated boys in their army? Isn't their morale high as well?

Dagestan and Ingushetia aren't far flung at all.

There are plenty of educated, middle class Ukrainians serving. Who do you think keeps coming up with innovative drone tactics and other things that have miliitary tacticians around the world sitting up and taking notes? Why do you think Ukraine has been so much better at combined arms and coordinated attacks than Russia has? Why do you think Ukraine has been able to integrate and adapt foreign weapons systems so much more quickly than anticipated?

You’re describing an imaginary war and an imaginary army.

"but but but Mogelson said...." shut up with all that crap of yours. Mogelson isn't even remotely the only source of information from the front.

Of course he isn't. But: he's one of the very, very few writers in the mainstream media who was allowed to deviate from the "heroic army boys performance for the betterment of Great Republic of Ukraine" narrative.

It almost makes one curious about the reason this ran.

Oh please. There's plenty of honest and objective reporting out there. Can't say the same for Russian media though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

Not surprising given the source is "Responsible Statecraft" (funded by both Koch network and Soros). It's a 'barking dog' (distraction) outfit who published "How to get to a place of peace for Ukraine" March 3, 2022 (just after the Russians invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th). For years they seemed to push for complacency / appeasement themes, under the notion that you can horse trade freedom and lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/11/some-questions-about-quincy-institute/

They can be all that AND correct in focusing on the strong links between defense companies and Washington's loudest think tanks.

I mean, unless you want to pretend that you can take millions from the military-industrial complex AND remain utterly neutral as to its goals. Why do you think they fund think tanks?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

Not surprising given the source is "Responsible Statecraft" (funded by both Koch network and Soros). It's a 'barking dog' (distraction) outfit who published "How to get to a place of peace for Ukraine" March 3, 2022 (just after the Russians invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th). For years they seemed to push for complacency / appeasement themes, under the notion that you can horse trade freedom and lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/11/some-questions-about-quincy-institute/

Of course you can. These trades are made every day. Politics is not a place for absolutism.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

Not surprising given the source is "Responsible Statecraft" (funded by both Koch network and Soros). It's a 'barking dog' (distraction) outfit who published "How to get to a place of peace for Ukraine" March 3, 2022 (just after the Russians invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th). For years they seemed to push for complacency / appeasement themes, under the notion that you can horse trade freedom and lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/11/some-questions-about-quincy-institute/

They can be all that AND correct in focusing on the strong links between defense companies and Washington's loudest think tanks.

I mean, unless you want to pretend that you can take millions from the military-industrial complex AND remain utterly neutral as to its goals. Why do you think they fund think tanks?

Then you should be happy about the de-militarization of Russian territory?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

Not surprising given the source is "Responsible Statecraft" (funded by both Koch network and Soros). It's a 'barking dog' (distraction) outfit who published "How to get to a place of peace for Ukraine" March 3, 2022 (just after the Russians invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th). For years they seemed to push for complacency / appeasement themes, under the notion that you can horse trade freedom and lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/11/some-questions-about-quincy-institute/

They can be all that AND correct in focusing on the strong links between defense companies and Washington's loudest think tanks.

I mean, unless you want to pretend that you can take millions from the military-industrial complex AND remain utterly neutral as to its goals. Why do you think they fund think tanks?

Then you should be happy about the de-militarization of Russian territory?

It's not de-militarized.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:An interesting read:
https://responsiblestatecraft.org/2023/06/01/how-weapons-firms-influence-the-ukraine-debate/

In short, when you hear a think tank scholar comment on the Ukraine war, chances are you’re hearing from someone whose employer is funded by those who profit from war, but you’ll probably never know it. That’s because 78 percent of the top ranked foreign policy think tanks in the U.S. receive funding from the Pentagon or its contractors, as documented in the new brief.

At the very top, defense industry influence is even greater: every single one of the top 10 ranked foreign policy think tanks receives funding from the defense sector. And, for many think tanks, the amount of defense funding is enormous. For example, CSIS, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS), and The Atlantic Council all reported receiving more than a million dollars a year from the defense sector.

These and other think tanks that receive considerable defense sector funding have publicly advocated for more militarized U.S. responses to the Ukraine war and, compared to their counterparts at think tanks that accept little or no defense sector funding, have dominated the media landscape related to the Ukraine war.

The new brief analyzed mentions of these top ranked foreign policy think tanks in Ukraine war related articles that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal. This analysis revealed that media outlets were more than seven times as likely to cite a think tank with defense sector support as they were to cite a think tank without it. Of the 1,247 think tank media mentions we tracked for the brief, 1,064 (or 85 percent) were mentions of think tanks with defense sector funding. And, the two most mentioned think tanks in Ukraine war related articles were think tanks flooded with defense sector dollars: CSIS and The Atlantic Council.

....Media outlets were, similarly, not transparent about the conflicts of interest of the experts they were citing. In fact, none of the media mentions analyzed in the brief were accompanied by disclosures of defense industry funding of think tanks that were, at times, recommending policies that could financially benefit their funders.

Not surprising given the source is "Responsible Statecraft" (funded by both Koch network and Soros). It's a 'barking dog' (distraction) outfit who published "How to get to a place of peace for Ukraine" March 3, 2022 (just after the Russians invaded Ukraine on Feb 20th). For years they seemed to push for complacency / appeasement themes, under the notion that you can horse trade freedom and lives.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/07/11/some-questions-about-quincy-institute/

They can be all that AND correct in focusing on the strong links between defense companies and Washington's loudest think tanks.

I mean, unless you want to pretend that you can take millions from the military-industrial complex AND remain utterly neutral as to its goals. Why do you think they fund think tanks?

Then you should be happy about the de-militarization of Russian territory?

Aren't you supposed to still be calling this a civil war?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I know ordinary people are just pawns but what is the best way to stop civilian casualties on both sides? Seems like Russia can’t be stopped from bombing Ukraine. Seems like Ukraine is getting better and better at bombing Russia too. Both sides are saying it’s strictly strategic and military objects but it’s not so.
What is the way to stop the war while minimizing civilian casualties? Russia isn’t puling out. Ukraine isn’t giving in.
There needs to be someone who actually cares about civilians. Neither side does.
I am probably completely naive but it’s so sad.

Neither side? Ukraine is fighting for its survival. Russia on the other hand is just on a violent drunken expansionist binge. Huge difference.

Ok why is Russia not being defeated? Seems like their threats are just for show? Why is all this allowed to go on?

Russia's already lost more than half of its operational military capability. They are already struggling to contain invasions into their own territory.

And yet...Ukraine needs more and more and more and more money and materiel to fight this depleted, struggling army. Go figure, huh. Should have been a slam dunk, if these reports are to be believed.

No, this is understandable. What’s not understandable is why (if Russia is bluffing) does nato not become direct party to conflict?
The only explanation I can think of is they want to grind Russia down as much as possible, wear it out, and who cares how many Russians and Ukrainians die

It's about protecting Ukrainian sovereignty. Russia getting ground down in the process is entirely Russia's problem.

But Ukrainians are also dying. Why not just deal a big blow to Russia and end it? I don’t get it

Simply because they can't. The Ukraine is likely not able to launch attacks of any size anymore. It would take NATO troops months to even begin to stage in sufficient number to do anything.

And despite the propaganda about ancient weapons and starving troops, it would be incredibly costly to NATO to try and dislodge Russia from the Donbass. It would be a bloody and costly conflict right before an election season kicks off.

And that's assuming no one uses nukes and China doesn't get involved.

PP you responded to. I do think the Russian army is weakened and morale is low. I think they could be easily pushed back - maybe not from the Crimea but from the rest of the country - by nato troops. That’s why I am surprised they don’t “just do it”.