Scott75 Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 Interesting article from Kit Klarenberg published today on Scheerpost. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article: ** On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development. The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind. Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried. According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukraine were all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” [snip] Markedly, Zelensky was not present at Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he “would like to [attend], of course”, but had received no invitation. In a rambling response, he said he was “not sure it’s proper to come,” particularly “during the war.” Sources close to Trump have claimed that on the contrary, Zelensky repeatedly asked to attend, but was rebuffed. For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/its-official-us-abandoning-ukraine/ 1 1 Quote
myata Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 This is indeed as important test as we will ever see in the immediate span: will America under Trump abandon her long-standing principles and join with the worst dictator scum of the world, like Putin and Kim? There's no way anyone could misinterpret the results of this observation. And it looks possible or even likely that the group controlling the cult is holding it ready as the final drive to bend all of the Congress Republicans to its will effectively taking control over the legislature. 1933 would smell so much closer. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
Hodad Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 40 minutes ago, myata said: This is indeed as important test as we will ever see in the immediate span: will America under Trump abandon her long-standing principles and join with the worst dictator scum of the world, like Putin and Kim? There's no way anyone could misinterpret the results of this observation. And it looks possible or even likely that the group controlling the cult is holding it ready as the final drive to bend all of the Congress Republicans to its will effectively taking control over the legislature. 1933 would smell so much closer. They are abandoned already. When a people elect a man without principles--and everyone knows it--we can see that the people have no principles. 1 1 1 Quote
Nationalist Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 (edited) 1 hour ago, Hodad said: They are abandoned already. When a people elect a man without principles--and everyone knows it--we can see that the people have no principles. Lol...now they hate the American public. What a bunch of...patriots. Edited January 27 by Nationalist Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
NAME REMOVED Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 3 hours ago, Scott75 said: Interesting article from Kit Klarenberg published today on Scheerpost. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article: ** On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development. The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind. Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried. According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukraine were all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” [snip] Markedly, Zelensky was not present at Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he “would like to [attend], of course”, but had received no invitation. In a rambling response, he said he was “not sure it’s proper to come,” particularly “during the war.” Sources close to Trump have claimed that on the contrary, Zelensky repeatedly asked to attend, but was rebuffed. For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/its-official-us-abandoning-ukraine/ We all knew that if Trump won, he would abandon Ukraine. It was so obvious. 1 hour ago, myata said: This is indeed as important test as we will ever see in the immediate span: will America under Trump abandon her long-standing principles and join with the worst dictator scum of the world, like Putin and Kim? There's no way anyone could misinterpret the results of this observation. And it looks possible or even likely that the group controlling the cult is holding it ready as the final drive to bend all of the Congress Republicans to its will effectively taking control over the legislature. 1933 would smell so much closer. I would argue, a better equivalent would be 1934 Germany. With the purge of democratic safeguards, and most employees in the CIA, FBI, CBC, FCC, etc. Quote
myata Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 Well, as of this minute, there's no confirmed information that the military aid has stopped. But it's the clearest, quite possibly, the final test to watch very closely. Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
User Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 1 hour ago, Hodad said: They are abandoned already. When a people elect a man without principles--and everyone knows it--we can see that the people have no principles. So dramatic. You care about principles in as much as it is little more than a partisan talking point. Quote
Deluge Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 4 hours ago, Scott75 said: Interesting article from Kit Klarenberg published today on Scheerpost. Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article: ** On January 19th, TIME magazine published an astonishing article, amply confirming what dissident, anti-war academics, activists, journalists and researchers have argued for a decade. The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, and never had any desire or intention to assist Kiev in defeating Moscow in the conflict, let alone achieving its maximalist aims of regaining Crimea and restoring the country’s 1991 borders. To have a major mainstream outlet finally corroborate this indubitable reality is a seismic development. The TIME article’s brief first paragraph alone is rife with explosive revelations. It notes when the proxy war erupted in February 2022, then-President Joe Biden “set three objectives for the US response” – and “Ukraine’s victory was never among them.” Moreover, the phrase oft-repeated by White House apparatchiks, that Washington would support Kiev “for as long as it takes”, was never meant to be taken literally. Instead, it was just “intentionally vague” newspeak, with no implied timeframe or even desired outcome in mind. Eric Green, a member of Biden’s National Security Council who oversaw Russia policy, states the US “deliberately…made no promise” to President Volodymyr Zelensky to “recover all of the land Russia had occupied” since the conflict’s inception, “and certainly not” Crimea or the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics. He said the White House believed “doing so was beyond Ukraine’s ability, even with robust help from the West.” It was well-understood such efforts were “not going to be a success story ultimately” for Kiev, if tried. According to TIME, the Biden administration’s three key objectives in Ukraine were all “achieved”. Nonetheless, “success” on these fronts “provides little satisfaction” to some of the former President’s “closest allies and advisers.” Green was quoted as saying Washington’s purported victory in Ukraine was “unfortunately the kind of success where you don’t feel great about it,” due to Kiev’s “suffering”, and “so much uncertainty about where it’s ultimately going to land.” [snip] Markedly, Zelensky was not present at Trump’s inauguration. In a January 6th interview with Newsweek, the Ukrainian President – typically never one to shy away from international jollies – said he “would like to [attend], of course”, but had received no invitation. In a rambling response, he said he was “not sure it’s proper to come,” particularly “during the war.” Sources close to Trump have claimed that on the contrary, Zelensky repeatedly asked to attend, but was rebuffed. For Berlin, Kiev, London, Paris, and NATO more widely, the writing couldn’t be on the wall any more plainly. Whatever reveries they may have of maintaining the proxy war any longer – Britain recently signed a 100-year-long partnership with Ukraine, under which London will “explore” building military bases on Kiev’s soil – they all ultimately remain imperial vassals, wholly dependent on US financial and military support to exist. Save for a major false flag incident, Trump’s message can only be received among the military alliance. ** Full article: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/27/its-official-us-abandoning-ukraine/ Both sides want it to end and Trump will be there to help facilitate a cease fire, at the very least. See how peaceful things can be when you f*cking war mongers aren't in power? 1 Quote
Scott75 Posted January 27 Author Report Posted January 27 4 hours ago, myata said: This is indeed as important test as we will ever see in the immediate span: will America under Trump abandon her long-standing principles and join with the worst dictator scum of the world, like Putin and Kim? I'm no fan of Trump, but I believe that abandoning Ukraine militarily is the right option. Trump has said some good things recently, such as his point that Zelensky passed on a very reasonable peace deal back in April 2022: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/26/trump-zelensky-passed-on-deal-decided-to-fight/ What Trump -doesn't- mention is that he was encouraged to pass on it by western powers. From the article: ** When Zelensky was close to signing the deal, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev where he pushed Zelensky to forgo diplomacy and attempt to drive the Russian forces from Ukraine. At the time, members of NATO promised to give Ukraine everything it needed to win the war. ** There's also the fact that Biden et al never expected Ukraine to win in its war with Russia, as the article in the opening post reveals. I think the oft quoted saying of "to the last Ukrainian" was always the underlying motto. Some realized this early on: https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/14/lee-camp-how-the-us-uk-stopped-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ 1 1 Quote
myata Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 (edited) 56 minutes ago, Scott75 said: I'm no fan of Trump, Yes you are in fact his fan and you're peddling Putin's lies and the supposed "deal" was nothing better than Munich 1938 which led to the consequences every sane person in the world knows or should. Edited January 27 by myata 2 Quote If it's you or them, the truth is equidistant
robosmith Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 4 hours ago, Nationalist said: Lol...now they hate the American public. Just the MAGA CULT, LIKE YOU: NO PRINCIPLES, except every man for himself. 🤮 Quote
Nationalist Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 30 minutes ago, robosmith said: Just the MAGA CULT, LIKE YOU: NO PRINCIPLES, except every man for himself. 🤮 Says the Libbie with no principals and morality on a slide rule. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
ironstone Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 4 hours ago, DUI_Offender said: We all knew that if Trump won, he would abandon Ukraine. It was so obvious. What is preventing the EU from filling the void if the US does wind down support for Ukraine? Is it such a terrible thing if Trump does act to try and end the war even if Russia and Ukraine do not achieve their objectives? Quote "Socialism in general has a record of failure so blatant that only an intellectual could ignore or evade it." Thomas Sowell
robosmith Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 13 minutes ago, Nationalist said: Says the Libbie with no principals I am the principal of my company. 13 minutes ago, Nationalist said: and morality on a slide rule. I haven't used a slide rule since college, Mr. DropOut. 7 minutes ago, ironstone said: What is preventing the EU from filling the void if the US does wind down support for Ukraine? Is it such a terrible thing if Trump does act to try and end the war even if Russia and Ukraine do not achieve their objectives? Apparently you don't know that we have the BEST military hardware. Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 2 hours ago, Scott75 said: I'm no fan of Trump, but I believe that abandoning Ukraine militarily is the right option. Trump has said some good things recently, such as his point that Zelensky passed on a very reasonable peace deal back in April 2022: https://scheerpost.com/2025/01/26/trump-zelensky-passed-on-deal-decided-to-fight/ What Trump -doesn't- mention is that he was encouraged to pass on it by western powers. From the article: ** When Zelensky was close to signing the deal, then-UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson traveled to Kiev where he pushed Zelensky to forgo diplomacy and attempt to drive the Russian forces from Ukraine. At the time, members of NATO promised to give Ukraine everything it needed to win the war. ** There's also the fact that Biden et al never expected Ukraine to win in its war with Russia, as the article in the opening post reveals. I think the oft quoted saying of "to the last Ukrainian" was always the underlying motto. Some realized this early on: https://scheerpost.com/2022/09/14/lee-camp-how-the-us-uk-stopped-peace-deal-in-ukraine/ You may want to use a better source than a borderline Communist Independant news company: These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources. Overall, we rate ScheerPost as left-biased due to its consistent focus on progressive issues and critiques of capitalism and militarism. We also rate it Mixed in factual reporting due to the publication of unsubstantiated conspiracy theories. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/scheerpost-bias-and-credibility/ Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 23 minutes ago, ironstone said: What is preventing the EU from filling the void if the US does wind down support for Ukraine? That is precisely what they are trying to do. Unfortunately, the US spends double the amount on defence, than all European countries combined. Quote
WestCanMan Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 9 hours ago, Scott75 said: ---snip--- The US always intended to abandon Ukraine after setting up the country for proxy war with Russia, ---snip--- Oh, snap! Some leftists' heads are gonna pop 🤣 1 Quote If CNN gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters, leftists would believe everything they typed. If you missed something on the Cultist Narrative Network, don't worry, the dolt horde here will make sure everyone hears it. "If it didn't come from CNN, it's heresy!" - leftist "intellectuals"
User Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Oh, snap! Some leftists' heads are gonna pop 🤣 Nope, not really. (I am not a leftists) I don't frame my POV on some random website, I have never even heard of before off of some baseless assertion someone I have never heard of before wrote. Quote
NAME REMOVED Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said: Oh, snap! Some leftists' heads are gonna pop 🤣 You do realise that Scott's article is from a socialist website? 1 Quote
User Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 42 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said: That is precisely what they are trying to do. Unfortunately, the US spends double the amount on defence, than all European countries combined. Unfortunately? You hate the man who spent his time in office trying to get NATO to spend more. He wants them to spend even more than that now. Quote
Nationalist Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 1 hour ago, robosmith said: I am the principal of my company. I haven't used a slide rule since college, Mr. DropOut. Apparently you don't know that we have the BEST military hardware. What a twit. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
Nationalist Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 1 hour ago, ironstone said: What is preventing the EU from filling the void if the US does wind down support for Ukraine? Is it such a terrible thing if Trump does act to try and end the war even if Russia and Ukraine do not achieve their objectives? Its not terrible. Europe is having a panic attack because they know they can't deal with Ukraine alone and Trump plus at least half of the US voting public, don't think the USA should be paying for a war on the other side of the ocean. The poodles in Europe are not capable of dealing with the Russians on their own and Trump is going to find a peace deal that he and Putin can live with, and then dictate that to Comic-Boy and the poodles. Lesson of this debacle? Europe needs to stand on its own feet for a change. 1 Quote Its so lonely in m'saddle since m'horse died.
eyeball Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 47 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said: You do realise that Scott's article is from a socialist website? It's reporting the same thing Time reported, but of course Time Magazine was cancelled and labelled Marxist agitprop years ago too so... 1 Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
eyeball Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 24 minutes ago, Nationalist said: at least half of the US voting public, don't think the USA should be paying for a war on the other side of the ocean Today you people say the same thing about the war in Iraq that followed 9/11. Of course you would have been cancelled as an Islamofacist commie for saying so back then. Now you're patriots or something...LMAO! Quote A government without public oversight is like a nuclear plant without lead shielding.
robosmith Posted January 27 Report Posted January 27 40 minutes ago, Nationalist said: What a twit. ^Clueless and BANKRUPT Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.