We’re in the End Game Now, and the Deep State Knows It

submitted by Questionable from i.imgur.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (24 children)

Putin did NOT attack. He is only liberating the ethnic Russians of Eastern Ukraine from the genocide that's been happening for 8 years by the Ukrainian regime.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Surely we can look at symptoms on different meta-levels what an attack actually is.

Tell me yours, i tell you mine, i hereby propose.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (22 children)

Discussing semantics? Nah, thanks.

My point is, there has been a genocide in Eastern Ukraine for 8 years before the Russian military intervention. This is not a "brutal attack of ruthless conquest on the poor innocent Ukrainians" as the legacy media attempts to portray, but rather either Russia coming to the rescue of ethnic Russians in Eastern Ukraine because they are the target of a genocide, or using said genocidal situation to ensure that Ukraine remains neutral and does not join NATO­.

One way or another, if you have a penny's worth of good sense, you can see that Russia is right: If NATO is allowed to station its intermediary range nukes in Ukraine, this is essentially an immediate nuclear first-strike threat by the only nation to ever use them in warfare and who participated in creating OPERATION UNTHINKABLE which called for the nuclear annihilation of over 60 soviet cities back in the late 1940s.

If NATO gets the ability to put their nukes in the Ukraine, then Putin has only one single recourse: first strike against the West, for which it has no defense and trying to counter the slow-ass Western nuclear missile counter-attack and survive.

I'll let you guess which course of action is best for the world: a neutral Ukraine or nuclear armageddon, at least for the West.

[–]Site_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

Why is Ukraine's non-entry to NATO a causus belli for Putin but Estonia's actual entry a non-issue? Estonia is a stone's throw from st petersburg. Russia's facade about Ukraine entering NATO - which was never on the cards - is shown to be a total lie when you consider that their nearest neighbours have been NATO members for many peaceful years.

Edit to add - turkey just approved SE and FI. Whoops. Almost seems like he should have just not tried to block Ukraine's westernisation after all, doesn't it

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 4 fun5 insightful - 3 fun6 insightful - 4 fun -  (8 children)

Yeah. He just should accept western and dollar hegemony. Why not, actually.

[–]Site_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Well, the above user argues that Ukraine's westernisation is what prompted this war. But in launching this war Putin has caused Moldova and Romania to hold joint parliament, he's pushed kazak into the western camp, he's caused his massive and well-populated border with Finland to be militarised.....in other words - if he was afraid of the ex-soviet world falling under "western and dollar hegemony" then this war was about the biggest mistake he could have made.

Do you disagree? Why would someone afraid of ex-soviet states westernising look at the world of June 22 and conclude the war was the right choice? Can you explain it

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Putin wants to be remembered. That is his personal interest in my personal simulation in this game of chess.

And since there was no westernising but actually facismising of many countries in eastern Europe south of St. Petersburg proudly sponsored and supported by US-deep-state asshats (as usual)

plus

the fact that the Western allies let Russia bleed over 27 million souls in Barbarossa instead of searching their microballs and finally opening a western front against Hitler (which they helped to put into power in the first place) earlier,

i totally can follow his reasoning. Eventhough i don't support these kind of wars at all.

Plus the fact that he stayed authentic since 2001 when he offered EU a big diplomatic olive branch to actually reinvent EU-Russian relations.

But these asshat rather chose to crawl up into the US-bobblehead-in-commands ass. Again and again.

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

But wait. If you really believe the west put Hitler into power (which i disagree) then how do you know they put the "bad" Hitler in power? If the 2001 Putin was a "good" Putin and he only turned bad later, then how come there wasn't a "good" Hitler who later went bad? Wouldn't the west be blameless for installing a "good" Hitler? Or could it be that the EU were right in 2001 to rebuff the "bad" Putin?

Also what is facisming? You mean Marine Le Pen who Putin supported? Or do you mean AFD who Putin supported? Or do you mean Aaron banks who Putin supported? Perhaps you mean the right wing mobs who attacked us capitol Jan 6th, who Putin supported? Perhaps you mean the Italian lega party who Putin supported? Perhaps you mean the Austrian Freedom Party which Putin supported?

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

One thing at a time:

Hitler was "put" into power by a lot of old German monarchists and a "shadow" army put together politically by Ludendorff (his "sugardaddy", so to say) and military led by Guderian for most parts. This already happened in the roaring twenties. And after their coup d'etat in 1923 failed they put together the visible NSDAP and the less visible SA (whose "leader" was mossaded by the later SS then because he was gay and disagreed on some aspects of their planned "legal" power-grab) and the almost invisible "Freikorps" mostly led by Guderian who also developed completely "new" military tactics while doing this. But even after 1933 Germany essentially was bankrupt. So they asked their fascists friends in Gods own hellhole overseas (like Ford) for money and the Russians led by Stalin for ressources. Mostly steel. Which they bought partly with counterfeit foreign money. Many US-fascist-leaning industrialists supported the Nazis. Otherwise there simply couldn't have been a rearmament of the Wehrmacht with Versaille treaty reparations and growing German diplomatic isolation in the 30ies.

With Putin this is another cup of tea, at least in size:

How big do you suppose the US-deep-state pockets actually are ?

Correct: Almost endless. Because in 9/11 they destroyed the last remaining hardcopy evidence with the tomahawk they launched into the Pentagon.

So either they jingle around some drug tonnage around the world or they "just" print new money.

If Putin wants to hoard foreign currency he has to sell natural ressources.That actually is what most of his friends have their ill-gotten-gains from. Because he can't print money like US-FED-chief-ticks can without flushing the Russian economy down the toilet.

We're talking completely different dimensions in money for squeezing political power on foreign ground.

So he switched terrority and level of this very old conflict into something that he at least has a realistic chance of keeping his ground. As long as the Chinese keep buying his ressources.

[–]Site_sux 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

We're talking completely different dimensions in money for squeezing political power on foreign ground.

Ok but you were complaining about fascists in the west. If you're mad about fascists in the west, there's a cancer-ridden loser befuddled oligarchic klepticon in Russia you can blame

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

It's not so much "entry into NATO" as "will put U.S. nukes inside Ukraine". For whatever reason (I think the fact that Zelenskiy is a US puppet plays hugely into this), the risk with Ukraine was that much greater. And that's also why Putin's intervention makes total sense.

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

Why would US place nukes in a non NATO member like Ukraine instead of Estonia? Haven't there been nukes in Turkey for a long while?

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (9 children)

I am not privy to all the insides and nitty gritty of everything relating to nuclear weaponry operations among the NATO nations. Some guesses: a) Estonia is too thoroughly surveiled by Russia; b) Estonia's terrain does not lend itself well to this kind of installation; c) Estonia's politicians, people, constitution or whatever specified upon joining NATO that there would be no nukes on their soil; d) Estonia's politics aren't easy enough to manipulate to ensure continued US support over future years and decades; Those are just a few, take your pick.

Also, Zelenskiy is a U.S. puppet. THAT is plenty good reason to use him to host nukes NATO member OR NOT.

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Your point was that Putin's murderous war of aggression was somehow justified by the danger of NATO nukes in Ukraine.

But that's nonsense because

  1. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO until Putin started this in 2014

  2. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO in 2020s and wasn't on a path to join NATO

  3. The danger of "nearby" nukes was already present in NATO countries

  4. Vanguard class subs are already invisibly off the coast

  5. Nobody ever had any obligation to satisfy his paranoia or ego anyway, nations can defend themselves however they want

Nothing excuses this horrendous war. Or the theft of grain. Or the rapes or attacks on civilians. There's no politicking which allows for genocide. So Putin can fuck off with his paranoid a-historical conspiracy theories

[–][deleted] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (7 children)

  1. Ukraine wasn't going to join NATO until Putin started this in 2014

Oh you mean right after the U.S. backed coup against the democratically elected Ukrainian President and installed a puppet ruler?

[–]Site_sux 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

There's absolutely zero evidence of that and masses of evidence of the opposite - it was a revolution of dignity, not a coup. A return to elections that yanukovic had cancelled.

And to preempt- I've read the transcript of the hacked call of the American ambassador and it doesn't say what the Russian trolls claim it does.

If the 2014 return to elections was really a coup, why the hell did they install a chocolatier? One who couldn't even win the next election? Against a Jewish "banderite" who was in deep cover as a successful charismatic TV personality? Spare me the contrived althistory. It was not a coup.