Peloni: Cliff notes on the past many decades. A must see.
See also: The CIA In Ukraine with Mike Benz [12min. video]
Human Events Daily with Jack Posobiec & Mike Benz | March 8, 2024
06:27 – The Internet and NATO
14:57 – The Ukrainian Counter Coup
19:35 – The American Counter Coup
24:34 – The Rise of the Gate Keepers
30:00 – The Yankee-Cowboy War leading to the Yankee-Cowboy Alliance
38:58 – The Rise of Trump and the Pirates
51:43 – What Happens When Presidents Die
@Laura
Your discussion with Peloni proves you have no factual basis for your heated opinions. Peloni knows what he is talking about. You don’t.
You are all bluster and no facts.
@Sebastien
Great comment!
.
Again, this is actually not true. As I explained below, Ukraine was never ‘armed’ with nukes. The control of the Ukrainian and Belarussian nukes were never in the possession of any Ukrainian or Belarusian, not ever. This may be another fact which you find to be inconvenient to your preferred narrative, but it is, nonetheless, an absolute fact. The nukes were situated in Ukraine, but the mechanism to fire the nukes were in the hands of Yeltsin, not in the hands of that crook, Kravchuk. Gorbachev passed the nuclear football to Yeltsin on December 22, 1991, and Kravchuk never had any access to it, . Having physical control of the nukes provided Kravchuk the ability to take the nukes offline, and thereby prevent their launching, but nothing else. Hence, the Russian nuclear arsenal in Ukraine was never a defensive deterrent to any threat from Russia, whether real or perceived. They did of course agree to release physical control of the nukes, following which they backtracked and chose to sell the release to the West under the guise of some threat from Russia, but again, the Russian boogeyman could never be deterred by a nuclear stronghold which the Russians alone controlled. So, no, the Ukrainians did not ‘disarm’ at anyone’s request.
Instead, they allowed the missiles which they had no way to fire to be removed, but only for a price. Ukraine was, as Russia was, turned into a completely plutocratic regime during the 90’s. Everything was for sale, and the Americans were the only ones with any cash, and the corrupt Kravchuk was intent upon getting his ticket punched only for a very good price. Yes, the Americans wanted the nukes, and yes the Ukrainians ultimately allowed the transfer, but it is a shallow fantasy that the nukes were ever armed by or for Ukraine, as the control of the nukes was always in the hands of Yeltsin.
So there was no ‘disarming’ Ukraine. Also, it was a business transaction, for which the Ukrainians gained a very sizeable loan.
@Laura
Speaking of rational persons, as a rational person, did you read the OSCE report? Because I did. You are an intelligent person, capable of making a clear and reasonable argument, but to suggest that the Russian peacekeepers were actually the belligerents in the Russia-Georgian war is simply not a reasonable position to suggest. But since this is your position, why do you believe that the EU fact finding mission chose to falsify their report for Russia? In fact, people who have an inborn predisposition can not accept facts which do not support their presupposed model. If this is not the situation you find yourself arguing, please do explain why the Europeans were ‘shilling’ for the Russians.
See, she exploded as predicted, right on schedule, sorry, shedule. 😀
“It was an inspired guess.”
Russian “peacekeepers”? That’s a laugh. Any rational person knows they weren’t there for peacekeeping. You just keep on twisting yourself into a pretzel to defend Putin.
Enough of this Kremlin talking point being repeated endlessly by Putin apologists. NATO is an alliance of free nations for the purpose of common defense. Those who join are choosing to, in fact they requested to join, they aren’t being forcibly taken. It’s not putin’s business who sovereign countries choose to form an alliance with. Given Russia’s history of aggression, it’s obvious why those newly free eastern European nations requested to join. No western nation has ever been a threat to Russia. Also like I pointed out, Ukraine disarmed at our request. There was a ZERO threat to Russia.
Tucker Carlson made the point that taking out Navalny during debates about continued funding of 60 billion dollars for Ukraine would have been dumb and whatever he is, Putin isn’t dumb.
Scott Ritter Made the point that Navalny was no threat as he had virtually no following but there is an opposition party, the Communist party, which gets 20 percent of the vote and which has been very critical of Putin but Putin tolerated it because Putin will tolerate pro-Russian dissent but not that of American agents trying to undermine the country which is more dissent than the regime Zelensky heads tolerates, which is to say, none.
It’s like the absurd notion that Russia blew up her own pipe line to Europe even if Biden hadn’t basically announced he was going to do it before hand, almost in so many words.
As for who invaded whom, Crimea, Donetsk and Luhansk were always Russian but for logistical reasons had no problem with being autonomously part of the new Ukrainian state, but when Victoria Nuland and the U.S. CIA and State Department overthrew the government, tearing up the constitution and declaring war on the Russian part of the country and it seceded, 8 years and 14,000 deaths later, when it was accepted into the Russian federation, it became clear that this was the Ukraine (as proxy for the U.S. and EU, NATO)’s invasion of Russian territory.
“And now, it’s just 8:o’clock and time for the penguin on top of your television set to explode.”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRoO6-4oJMg&t
@Laura
Passive? Really? Expanding NATO which is an anti-Russian military organization, to the doors of Russia while promising Georgia and Ukraine membership in the anti-Russia NATO……overthrowing the legitimate Ukrainian pro Russian govt…bombing the Russian client state, Serbia, into submission…turning Libya into a failed state for having chosen to partner with Russia in an energy deal…Are these the passive acts from America which you are referencing?
Wrong on both counts. The US triggered both the war in Georgia and the war in Ukraine and then followed each event with acts of belligerence.
The US emboldened the lunatic Saakashvili with their promise of NATO membership, following which he attacked Russian peacekeepers. As demonstrated in the OSCE report, it was confirmed that Russia was initially attacked by Saak’s forces. Following this revelation the US conducted war games in Georgia based around a scenario which completely ignored the findings of the OSCE report. Also, in case you are not aware, the OSCE report was a EU fact finding mission, not Russian.
Similarly, the US emboldened the Nazi’s in Ukraine to overthrow the Yanukovych govt which led to them overthrowing the US-Russian deal to replace Yanukovych without the Nazi’s in the govt. This led to the founder of the Nazi Svoboda party, Parubiy, being named first to the head of the Ukrainian version of the NSA, and later to be the head of the Ukrainian parliament for another 5yrs. While Parubiy was the head of the Ukrainian NSA, he was involved in the Odessa massacre, this after he had been the Commandant of the Ukraine, and responsible for the Nazi’s having killed their victims in the Maidan square. Then, after the rise of the Nationalists and Nazis to power, the US funded that govt with well over a billion dollars in support just in the first year, even as it was killing and bombing ethnic Russian civilians, thus violating the tattered remnants of the Budapest Memorandum (see below).
Wrong. Ukraine’s nuclear arsenal was never under the control of Ukraine to launch in her defense against anyone. We can explore this fact more closely, and there may well be an interest to do so, but Ukraine only had the ability to prevent the nukes in Ukraine from being remotely fired by Russia, ie Ukraine was not armed with nukes, but only held possession of the nukes which were ALWAYS under the exclusive control of Russia.
Also, the guarantees described in the Budapest Memorandum included 6 short and easily understood stipulations. Two of these stipulations were clearly violated during the US coup in Ukraine, and a third was violated by the US supported govt which shortly thereafter slaughtered its Russian minority in the Dombas. Notably, the US violations of the BM not only preceded the Russian seizure of Crimea, but actually led to it. Furthermore, not only did not a single Crimean die during the Russian occupation of Crimea, but a large number of the Ukrainian fleet officers in Sevastopol chose to join the Russian fleet rather than return to the Maidan govt controlled Ukraine.
This is exactly correct. Ukraine has a great deal over which to be upset with the US.
This statement is taken out of context. Perhaps you will provide us with the full text of his statement rather than the fragment which is routinely clipped to remove the context of what he actually did state.
Whatever Putin is, he is the leader of Russia. If the Russians wanted him gone, they have had twenty years and the likely access to billions of US dollars to see him on his way. The US financed Navalny and his ilk have made little progress in Russia Also, the US is allying itself with the barbarous Iranians, so let us not deceive ourselves into believing that the US was ever motivated to oppose Putin simply because they thought him to be “a tyrant, an imperialist and warmonger”.
The lunatics in Washington want a pliant proxy in Russia, similar to that which they placed in Ukraine. Failing this, they will see Russia splintered into a balkanized collection of states which will render it just as useful to the aims of the lunatics running the American empire.
My position is set out in this article.
Clearly, the US is the aggressor in the Ukraine war.
Nonsense, the exact opposite is true. We’ve been passive in the face of Russian aggression for 20 years. Obama removed our missiles from Poland and the Czech Republic, told Medvedev that he will have more leeway after the 2012 election, was passive in the face of Russia’s invasion of Crimea as Bush was passive when Russia invaded Georgia. This is the argument I keep hearing from apologists for Putin, that we’ve provoked him. This is utterly preposterous. We did nothing to Russia. Stop listening to the likes of Ritter et al. Ukraine disarmed itself in 1994 when it gave its nukes to Russia in exchange for security guarantees. How has that worked out for them? If anything, Ukraine has greater cause to be angry with us. Why can’t you just acknowledge that Putin is the bad guy who said that the breakup of the USSR was the worst catastrophe of the 20th century. Who said he wants to reestablish the Russian empire and his heroes are Peter the great and Stalin. I’ll remind you also that Putin concocted the FSB false flag operation in which a Moscow apartment building was bombed in order to blame the Chechens to facilitate Putin’s rise to power and create a pretext for the Chechen war. He’s a tyrant, an imperialist and warmonger who invents and creates pretexts to go to war, not a victim of circumstances caused by us or anyone else. I don’t know how this could be any clearer.
LAURA,
i blame the US fo the Ukrainian mess. The US over 20 years forced Russia into a corner. Till this happenned, Russia was a friend of Israel. I have never heard you blame the US for the Ukrianian war.
The problem is that the US policies ended up empowering them. I have never heard you blame the US for this.. Do you agree with the US policy over twenty years of cornering Russia?
But now we have to deal with the aftermath. Russia is now in bed with China and Iran. But the US is also Iran’s protector.
So what do you suggest Israel do at this point? I am interested in what you will say.
Ted, your shilling for putin is in overdrive and its disturbing considering that putin is an enemy of Israel and directly linked with Iran, hamas and hezbollah, which you continue to turn a blind eye to. Why are you turning a blind eye to Russia’s alliance with Israel’s enemies, which has been going on for years? Do you hate America that much that you would see an enemy of Israel become empowered? This site has half become Russiapundit.