USAID funded Ukraine group that smeared VP Vance as pro-Russia ‘propagandist’ | The Grayzone

[Scott75]

Interesting article from journalist Wyatt Reed, the managing editor of The Grayzone published just yesterday. I just caught wind of this article on Russia's RT site, but The Grayzone is an independent publication. I'm not surprised that Media Bias Fact Check doesn't like them, considering that they're definitely off the beaten path. MBFC labels them as extreme left wing though, so the fact that they are saying that a clearly right wing politician has been smeared suggests to me that they aren't biased in this case. Alternet, a left wing organization that's been around for quite some time, financed them for a time. More on the Alternet news website here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AlterNet

Alright, with all of that said, here's the article:

https://thegrayzone.com/2025/03/10/usaid-ukraine-vp-vance-russia-propagandist/

Quoting the introduction and conclusion of the article below:

**

March 10, 2025

US Pres. Donald Trump has lambasted USAID for absurd foreign expenditures. But Trump has omitted perhaps the most scandalous operation: in Ukraine, the US funded groups which defamed the US Vice President, members of Congress, and US journalists as “foreign propagandists,” while training Ukrainians in “PSYOP” tactics.

The US government funded a Ukrainian military intelligence firm which smeared US Vice President JD Vance, US Counterterrorism Director Joe Kent, and Rep. Thomas Massie as “foreign propagandists of the Russian Federation.”

To this day, the online blacklist published by the USAID-funded Ukrainian group, known as Molfar, lists Vance, Massie, and Kent as “foreign propagandists” aligned with the Russian government, and demands their “removal from public positions, the introduction of sanctions, and investigations into personal involvement in crimes.”

“These individuals pose a threat to the national security of countries that do not support the terrorist policy of the Russian Federation,” Molfar states.

Molfar’s website condemns Vance for having “compared Ukrainian democracy to Afghanistan” and stating that he “remains opposed to continuing to finance this war.” Perhaps worst of all, in the eyes of the Ukrainian information warriors, was his stance on Ukraine’s NATO aspirations: “He declared that Ukraine should not join NATO, because it would supposedly mean “inviting the American nation to go to war.””

 

In 2022, a representative of Molfar was quoted in CNN accusing President Trump of “absolutely pro-Kremlin” behavior because “Trump said that Crimea is Russian, because people speak Russian.”

Molfar, a Ukrainian term for a sorcerer or wizard, describes itself as an open-source intelligence agency which “collects lists of Ukrainian enemies to bring war criminals to justice.” Its website previously named both USAID and the US Civil Research and Development Fund (CRDF) as “partners.” The legality of US agencies sponsoring foreign groups to smear Americans and meddle in American politics is questionable at best.

[snip]

 

In 2024, when Ukrainian officials decided to ramp up nationalism in Ukrainian classrooms, the Ministry of Digital Transformation presided over a formal partnership between Molfar and Azov.

Citing the head of the Ministry of Digital Transformation, Mykhailo Fedorov, one Ukrainian outlet wrote: “According to him, the Ministry of Education and Science developed the program for [teacher] trainers together with the military and civil society organizations – in particular, the Azov military, [and] the largest OSINT agency in Ukraine, Molfar.”

Despite Molfar’s partnership with a neo-Nazi unit of the Ukrainian military which had once been proscribed by the US Congress, USAID continued to subsidize the group’s activities. In August 2024, when USAID sponsored a “Hackathon” in Ukraine, they turned to Molfar CEO Artem Starorsiek to judge the contest.

For over two years, USAID sponsored Kiev-based outfits like Molfar, CCD and VoxUkraine as they sought to destroy the reputations of US politicians. Now that those officials occupy key national security positions in the Trump administration, as well as the Vice Presidency, is it any wonder they are determined to shut down the information warfare apparatus that defamed them as foreign agents?

**

[herbie]

??? Kiev doesn't destroy reputations. Trump and Vance are doing that all by themselves.

[Scott75]

3 minutes ago, herbie said:

??? Kiev doesn't destroy reputations. Trump and Vance are doing that all by themselves.

I certainly don't agree with everything Trump and Vance are doing, but when it comes to their drive towards a peace agreement in Ukraine, I definitely think they're on the right track.

[Michael Hardner]

10 minutes ago, Scott75 said:

I certainly don't agree with everything Trump and Vance are doing, but when it comes to their drive towards a peace agreement in Ukraine, I definitely think they're on the right track.

They do go outside the box. 

 

[SpankyMcFarland]

1 hour ago, Scott75 said:

I certainly don't agree with everything Trump and Vance are doing, but when it comes to their drive towards a peace agreement in Ukraine, I definitely think they're on the right track.

Let’s see how tough they are with Putin first. They seem very anxious to browbeat Zelenskyy but coy on what the Russians will have to give up. Trump’s tone about recent stepped up Russian attacks on Ukraine is deeply disturbing. Claiming that anyone would have done it is a flat out lie. For a start, most countries would not invade their neighbours. 

[herbie]

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

when it comes to their drive towards a peace agreement in Ukraine, I definitely think they're on the right track.

Yeah, so does Putin

[Scott75]

32 minutes ago, herbie said:

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I certainly don't agree with everything Trump and Vance are doing, but when it comes to their drive towards a peace agreement in Ukraine, I definitely think they're on the right track.

Yeah, so does Putin

Perhaps, but I think we can agree that the real issue is, is Trump really on the right track? You know my view. How about yours?

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

4 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I certainly don't agree with everything Trump and Vance are doing, but when it comes to their drive towards a peace agreement in Ukraine, I definitely think they're on the right track.

Let’s see how tough they are with Putin first. They seem very anxious to browbeat Zelenskyy but coy on what the Russians will have to give up.

That seems pretty smart in my view. You may recall that in Trump's argument with Zelensky, he said that Zelensky had no cards. That may be a bit of an exageration, but not by much. As Trump has said elsewhere, Ukraine is getting pounded on the battlefield, and it's true. In the last 2 days, they lost a big chunk of their territory in Kursk, and they've been losing territory in Ukraine as well. As Professor Jeff Sachs, who advised 3 UN Secretary Generals over the years, put it to members of the European Union recently:

**

Let me end with a few words about President Donald Trump. Trump does not want Biden’s losing hand. This is why Trump and President Putin are likely to agree to end the war. Even if Europe continues with its warmongering, it won’t matter. The war is ending. So, please, get it out of your system. Please tell your colleagues. “It’s over.” It’s over because Trump doesn’t want to hold on to a loser. The one that will be saved by the negotiations taking place right now is Ukraine. The second is Europe.

**

Source:

https://consortiumnews.com/2025/02/27/jeffrey-sachs-the-geopolitics-of-peace/

[SpankyMcFarland]

Europe is not ‘warmongering’ here. Defending a democracy from invasion is what neighbouring countries should do. I can’t understand how anybody who isn’t Russian can have such a warped view of this conflict but now a large proportion of Canadians see the war this way which amazes and dismays me. 

[herbie]

16 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Perhaps, but I think we can agree that the real issue is, is Trump really on the right track?

Right track for a billionaire capitalist perhaps? Certainly not as a standup for democracy or any king of politician.
Opening talks with conceding all lands and demanding access to Ukraine's resources as a condition of those talks? Claiming what the aid the previous administration gave was a 'loan' that must be repaid?

Fall right in line with the untrustworthy a$$ tearing up international treaties and illegally violating the ones he himself negotiated. Are you claiming even scum can be on the right track?

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Europe is not ‘warmongering’ here. Defending a democracy from invasion is what neighbouring countries should do.

Agreed. Unfortunately, European nations either stood idly by or even -encouraged- the U.S. organized Euromaidan Coup, prompting then elected Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to flee for his life to Russia. Some good articles on all of this:

https://off-guardian.org/2022/02/24/timeline-euromaidan-the-original-ukraine-crisis/

https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-hidden-truth-about-ukraine-italian-documentary-bombshell-evidence-kiev-euromaidan-snipers-kill-demonstrators/5619684

Ukraine's "democracy" has become more of a sham ever since. Now, had that been all there was to it, I doubt that Russia would have gone beyond its annexation of Crimea back in 2014. Unfortunately, it wasn't- the neo nazis and others in the far right, not content with taking control of the country, almost immediately attempted to block eastern Ukrainians from using their predominantly native Russian language in their government buildings and schools. This led to protests, which were brutally suppressed. A good article on this:

https://www.rt.com/russia/554860-burned-alive-2014-odessa/

That, in turn, led many eastern regions to rebel. Some rebellions were quashed by the new Ukrainian government, but there was sufficient resistance in the Ukrainian regions of Donetsk and Luhansk to essentially become self governing entitites. There were accusations that Russia was arming them, but no tangible evidence of this from what I've seen. Former Swiss Intelligence Officer Jacques Baud, who had been tasked with keeping small arms out of non governmental forces back in 2014, paints quite an interesting picture as to what happened at this point. The article was clearly written more for a Swiss audience, and was originally written in Jacques Baud's native French, but I think these are minors points, considering just how few people are aware of the information he imparted in his article. Quoting from it below:

**

In 2014, I am at NATO, responsible for the fight against the proliferation of small arms, and we are trying to detect Russian arms deliveries to the rebels in order to see if Moscow is involved. The information that we receive then comes practically all from the Polish intelligence services and does not “match” with the information from the OSCE: in spite of rather crude allegations, we do not observe any delivery of arms and materials Russian military.

The rebels are armed thanks to the defections of Russian-speaking Ukrainian units which cross over to the rebel side. As the Ukrainian failures progressed, the entire tank, artillery or anti-aircraft battalions swelled the ranks of the autonomists. This is what drives the Ukrainians to commit to the Minsk Accords.

But, just after signing the Minsk 1 Accords, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko launched a vast anti-terrorist operation (ATO/Антитерористична операція) against Donbass. Bis repetita placent  : poorly advised by NATO officers, the Ukrainians suffered a crushing defeat at Debaltsevo which forced them to commit to the Minsk 2 Agreements…

It is essential to recall here that the Minsk 1 (September 2014) and Minsk 2 (February 2015) Agreements provided for neither the separation nor the independence of the Republics, but their autonomy within the framework of Ukraine. Those who have read the Accords (they are very, very, very few) will find that it is written in full that the status of the republics was to be negotiated between Kiev and the representatives of the republics, for an internal solution in Ukraine .

This is why since 2014, Russia has systematically demanded their application while refusing to be a party to the negotiations, because it was an internal matter for Ukraine. On the other side, the Westerners – led by France – systematically tried to replace the Minsk Accords with the “Normandy format”, which brought Russians and Ukrainians face to face. However, let us remember, there were never any Russian troops in the Donbass before February 23-24, 2022. Moreover, OSCE observers have never observed the slightest trace of Russian units operating in the Donbass. Thus, the US intelligence map published by the Washington Post on December 3, 2021 does not show Russian troops in Donbass.

In October 2015, Vasyl Hrytsak, director of the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), confessed that only 56 Russian fighters had been observed in the Donbass. It was an even comparable to that of the Swiss going to fight in Bosnia during the weekends, in the 1990s, or the French who are going to fight in Ukraine today.

The Ukrainian army was then in a deplorable state. In October 2018, after four years of war, Ukraine’s chief military prosecutor Anatoly Matios said that Ukraine had lost 2,700 men in the Donbass: 891 from disease, 318 from traffic accidents, 177 from other accidents, 175 from poisoning (alcohol, drugs), 172 from careless handling of weapons, 101 from breaches of safety rules, 228 from murder and 615 from suicide. 

In fact, the army is undermined by the corruption of its cadres and no longer enjoys the support of the population. According to a UK Home Office report , when reservists were called up in March-April 2014, 70% did not show up for the first session, 80% for the second, 90% for the third and 95% for the fourth. In October/November 2017, 70% of callers did not show up during the “  Autumn 2017  ” callback campaign. This does not include suicides and desertions(often for the benefit of the autonomists) which reach up to 30% of the workforce in the ATO zone. Young Ukrainians refuse to go and fight in the Donbass and prefer emigration, which also explains, at least partially, the country’s demographic deficit.

The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense then turned to NATO to help it make its armed forces more “attractive”. Having already worked on similar projects within the framework of the United Nations, I was asked by NATO to participate in a program intended to restore the image of the Ukrainian armed forces. But it’s a long process and the Ukrainians want to go quickly.

Thus, to compensate for the lack of soldiers, the Ukrainian government resorted to paramilitary militias. They are essentially made up of foreign mercenaries, often far-right activists. As of 2020, they constitute around 40% of Ukraine’s forces and number around 102,000 men according to Reuters . They are armed, financed and trained by the United States, Great Britain, Canada and France. There are more than 19 nationalities – including Swiss.

Western countries have therefore clearly created and supported Ukrainian far-right militias . In October 2021, the Jerusalem Post sounded the alarm by denouncing the Centuria project . These militias have been operating in the Donbass since 2014, with Western support. Even if we can discuss the term “Nazi”, the fact remains that these militias are violent, convey a nauseating ideology and are virulently anti-Semitic. Their anti-Semitism is more cultural than political, which is why the adjective “Nazi” is not really appropriate. Their hatred of the Jew comes from the great famines of the years 1920-1930 in Ukraine, resulting from the confiscation of crops by Stalin in order to finance the modernization of the Red Army. However, this genocide – known in Ukraine under the name of Holodomor – was perpetrated by the NKVD (ancestor of the KGB) whose upper echelons of leadership were mainly composed of Jews. That is why, today, Ukrainian extremists are asking Israel to apologize for the crimes of communism , as the Jerusalem Post reports . We are therefore a long way from a “  rewriting of history  ” by Vladimir Putin.

These militias, stemming from the far-right groups that led the Euromaidan revolution in 2014, are made up of fanatical and brutal individuals. The best known of these is the Azov regiment, whose emblem is reminiscent of that of the 2nd SS ^Das Reich Panzer Division , which is the object of real veneration in Ukraine, for having liberated Kharkov from the Soviets in 1943, before to perpetrate the massacre of Oradour-sur-Glane in 1944, in France.

**

Full article:

https://scheerpost.com/2022/04/09/former-nato-military-analyst-blows-the-whistle-on-wests-ukraine-invasion-narrative/

The article goes on to say how Ukraine's new government's continued insistence on trying to bring its eastern region to heel ultimately led to Russia's military operation in Ukraine. Again quoting from the same article:

**

On February 17, President Joe Biden announces that Russia will attack Ukraine in the coming days. How does he know? Mystery… But since the 16th, the artillery shelling of the populations of Donbass has increased dramatically, as shown by the daily reports of OSCE observers. Naturally, neither the media, nor the European Union, nor NATO, nor any Western government reacts and intervenes. We will say later that this is Russian disinformation. In fact, it seems that the European Union and some countries purposely glossed over the massacre of the people of Donbass, knowing that it would provoke Russian intervention.

[snip]

In fact, as early as February 16, Joe Biden knows that the Ukrainians began to shell the civilian populations of Donbass, putting Vladimir Putin in front of a difficult choice: to help Donbass militarily and create an international problem or to sit idle and watch Russian speakers from the Donbass being run over.

If he decides to intervene, Vladimir Putin can invoke the international obligation of “  Responsibility To Protect  ” (R2P). But he knows that whatever its nature or scale, the intervention will trigger a shower of sanctions. Therefore, whether its intervention is limited to the Donbass or whether it goes further to put pressure on the West for the status of Ukraine, the price to be paid will be the same. This is what he explains in his speech on February 21.

That day, he acceded to the request of the Duma and recognized the independence of the two Republics of Donbass and, in the process, he signed treaties of friendship and assistance with them.

The Ukrainian artillery bombardments on the populations of Donbass continued and, on February 23, the two Republics requested military aid from Russia. On the 24th, Vladimir Putin invokes Article 51 of the United Nations Charter which provides for mutual military assistance within the framework of a defensive alliance.

In order to make the Russian intervention totally illegal in the eyes of the public we deliberately obscure the fact that the war actually started on February 16th. The Ukrainian army was preparing to attack the Donbass as early as 2021, as certain Russian and European intelligence services were well aware… The lawyers will judge.

**

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, herbie said:

19 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Perhaps, but I think we can agree that the real issue is, is Trump really on the right track? You know my view. How about yours?

Right track for a billionaire capitalist perhaps? Certainly not as a standup for democracy or any king of politician.

I'm not claiming that Trump is doing this for the good of Ukrainians. I know that he seemed quite interested in the mineral deal and has mentioned the possibility of World War 3 in his argument with Zelensky, which, to me, strongly suggests that his motives are more for profit and avoiding a situation which would put him in danger as well.

What I -am- saying is that despite this, I, along with others such as Professor Jeffrey Sachs, believe that it is in Ukraine's best interests to make a peace deal with Russia sooner rather than later.

As to democracy, as I've explained to McFarland in my previous post, Ukraine isn't a democracy.

[herbie]

3 hours ago, Scott75 said:

Ukraine isn't a democracy.

well that explains everything, you just blew any value of your opinion to hell.

[Scott75]

9 hours ago, herbie said:

13 hours ago, Scott75 said:

As to democracy, as I've explained to McFarland in my previous post, Ukraine isn't a democracy.

well that explains everything, you just blew any value of your opinion to hell.

It's not just my view. Even Newsweek published an opinion piece detailing how Ukraine no longer looked like a democracy, and this was back in 2023:

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-sure-doesnt-look-like-democracy-anymore-opinion-1844799

It's only gotten worse now.

[Moonbox]

On 3/13/2025 at 8:47 AM, Scott75 said:

It's not just my view. Even Newsweek published an opinion piece detailing how Ukraine no longer looked like a democracy, and this was back in 2023:

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-sure-doesnt-look-like-democracy-anymore-opinion-1844799

You do know what an opinion piece is, right?  This isn't even an editorial...

[Scott75]

1 hour ago, Moonbox said:

On 3/13/2025 at 6:47 AM, Scott75 said:

It's not just my view. Even Newsweek published an opinion piece detailing how Ukraine no longer looked like a democracy, and this was back in 2023:

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-sure-doesnt-look-like-democracy-anymore-opinion-1844799

It's only gotten worse now.

You do know what an opinion piece is, right?

I literally said it was an opinion piece in the comment you're responding to. Much more important then what it's categorized as is who wrote the article and the evidence it brings to the table. Here's who it's written by:

**

David H. Rundell is the author of Vision or Mirage, Saudi Arabia at the Crossroads and a former chief of mission at the American Embassy in Saudi Arabia. Ambassador Michael Gfoeller is a former political advisor to the U.S. Central Command who spent 15 years working the Soviet Union and former Soviet Union.

**

Hardly lightweights. The article itself is also replete with very good information in my view. Quoting most of it below for those who don't like clicking on links:

**

Democracies do not ban opposition parties. The fact that so many such parties ever existed says something about the level of opposition faced by the Ukrainian nationalist government that came to power after the 2014 revolution. Then in May of 2022, the Ukrainian parliament passed a law formally banning all these parties. President Volodymyr Zelensky signed the law. The list included the Opposition Platform for Life, which had held fully 10 percent of the seats in parliament. Among the 11 banned parties are the Socialist Party of Ukraine, the Progressive Socialist Party of the Ukraine, the Union of Left Forces, and the Communist Party of Ukraine.

Democracies do not ban elections, but Ukraine has put the democratic process itself on hold since declaring martial law in 2022. This hiatus was supposed to be temporary, but it has been repeatedly extended, most recently in July 2023. As a result of that vote in the Ukrainian parliament, where all opposition parties have been removed, the parliamentary elections scheduled for last month were canceled. Presidential elections were scheduled for March 2024, but under current rules they too will not be held, and Zelensky has stated that "now is not the time for elections."

Democracies do not censor the media. In February 2022, the Ukrainian government ordered the nine largest television networks in Ukraine to combine their news operations into a single, state-controlled news program called "Telemarathon." In April 2022 the National Security Council ordered three independent television channels associated with Zelensky's predecessor taken off the air. In December 2022, Zelensky signed a law which gave the National Broadcasting Council statutory authority to regulate all print, broadcast, and digital media.

This law gave the Ukrainian government the ability to censor and shut down independent platforms such as Google. It has been harshly criticized by the European Federation of Journalists, which stated that it is incompatible with European Union membership. Ukraine's own National Union of Journalists called the law "the biggest threat to free speech in (Ukraine's) independent history." At this point there are no independent television stations broadcasting news in Ukraine. Print and digital media remain heavily censored.

Democracies to not prohibit travel. When Ukraine declared martial law, men aged 18 to 60 became subject to conscription and were therefore forbidden to leave the country. Many have nevertheless sought to avoid the war by fleeing abroad. Those apprehended by the border police are sent to military service. Those who manage to escape remain mostly in Poland and Germany. The Ukrainian government has asked the EU to forcibly return them to Ukraine, thus far without success.

Democracies do not restrict religious freedom. In December 2022, Zelensky banned the activities of all religious organizations linked to Russia. This included Ukraine's largest denomination, the Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which had been closely integrated with the Russian Orthodox Church for more than a thousand years. In May 2022 the church's synod of bishops, in a historic step, formally voted to sever all ties to Moscow and condemned the Russian Orthodox Church's support for the invasion of Ukraine. This was not enough for the Ukrainian government. It increased efforts to ban the Orthodox Church while organizing and promoting a new, state-controlled church.

If people wish to join this new church, they should certainly be free to do so, but the government in Kiev has been forcing congregations to switch allegiance and seizing the property of those who resist. The Ukrainian parliament is now preparing to formally outlaw the Ukrainian Orthodox Church. Democracies do not seek to ban a nation's oldest and largest denomination.

[snip]

To be fair, governments do frequently limit civil liberties in times of crisis. Our own Patriot Act probably went too far in that direction. President Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for Southern sympathizers during the American Civil War, but he never canceled elections. Neither did Winston Churchill, to whom Zelensky is sometimes compared. Churchill actually lost the 1945 British election and had to watch Clement Attlee take the final victory lap for World War II.

The catalogue of authoritarian abuses is growing in Ukraine and shows little sign of slowing. Under the guidance of the West's favorite autocrat—Zelensky—it has created a state-controlled church, taken control of all television news, and banned major opposition parties. This far exceeds anything that occurred in recent American or British history. Both of those nations remained fundamentally democratic during war, even a civil war. This latest cancellation of presidential elections in Ukraine destroys any pretense that we are supporting a functioning democracy.

**

 

Full article:

https://www.newsweek.com/ukraine-sure-doesnt-look-like-democracy-anymore-opinion-1844799

[Moonbox]

7 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I literally said it was an opinion piece in the comment you're responding to.

Yes, that's why I asked you if you knew what an opinion piece even is.  You were framing it as if it was Newsweek's view, rather than just the on-brand opinion of another Republican shill who wrote into Newsweek.  🙃

[Nationalist]

On 3/12/2025 at 12:30 PM, SpankyMcFarland said:

Europe is not ‘warmongering’ here. Defending a democracy from invasion is what neighbouring countries should do. I can’t understand how anybody who isn’t Russian can have such a warped view of this conflict but now a large proportion of Canadians see the war this way which amazes and dismays me. 

So go fight.

No?

Pfft...

[Scott75]

3 hours ago, Moonbox said:

11 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I literally said it was an opinion piece in the comment you're responding to.

Yes, that's why I asked you if you knew what an opinion piece even is.  You were framing it as if it was Newsweek's view, rather than just the on-brand opinion of another Republican shill who wrote into Newsweek.  🙃

I just said that Newsweek published it, I never said it was Newsweek's view. As to your assertion that these diplomats were 'Republican shills', you've presented no evidence of this. I actually looked to see if I could find if either of the authors were even associated with any political party, but couldn't find any such evidence. I did find these links on the 2 men:

https://www.amazon.com/stores/author/B08BXZ9VH9/about?ccs_id=26876cdc-ede7-4bbe-b49e-0553c8b06539

https://www.benfranklinfellowship.org/michael-gfoeller

I also see that they published another opinion piece in Newsweek a few months earlier then the piece I originally quoted and linked to that I think is also good, along the lines of things that other diplomats have said, including the current CIA director:

https://www.newsweek.com/never-forget-real-reason-russia-went-war-opinion-1781535

Edited March 17 by Scott75

[Moonbox]

5 hours ago, Scott75 said:

I just said that Newsweek published it, I never said it was Newsweek's view. As to your assertion that these diplomats were 'Republican shills', you've presented no evidence of this.

I refer you to anything else he's written for Newsweek.  🙃

[Scott75]

On 3/17/2025 at 9:14 PM, Moonbox said:

On 3/17/2025 at 3:51 PM, Scott75 said:

I just said that Newsweek published it, I never said it was Newsweek's view. As to your assertion that these diplomats were 'Republican shills', you've presented no evidence of this.

I refer you to anything else he's written for Newsweek.  🙃

First of all, the article was published by 2 diplomats. Secondly, I've already seen another article by both of these diplomats in Newsweek and I didn't even see any evidence that they belonged to a particular party, let alone that they were "Republican shills".

[Moonbox]

14 hours ago, Scott75 said:

First of all, the article was published by 2 diplomats. Secondly, I've already seen another article by both of these diplomats in Newsweek and I didn't even see any evidence that they belonged to a particular party, let alone that they were "Republican shills".

You can click the link to the authors’ other wonderful work on Newsweek, including his rave review of Trump’s clown cabinet and, in particular, Tulsi Gabbard.  “I see no evidence…”. 😆

[Scott75]

On 3/20/2025 at 11:04 AM, Moonbox said:

  

On 3/19/2025 at 7:59 PM, Scott75 said:

First of all, the article was published by 2 diplomats. Secondly, I've already seen another article by both of these diplomats in Newsweek and I didn't even see any evidence that they belonged to a particular party, let alone that they were "Republican shills".

You can click the link to the authors’ other wonderful work on Newsweek, including his rave review of Trump’s clown cabinet and, in particular, Tulsi Gabbard.  “I see no evidence…”. 😆

I'm not going to get distracted with you bringing other people into this, such as Tulsi Gabbard. You had claimed that these diplomats were "Republican shills", but you have yet to offer a shred of evidence for your assertion. 

Edited March 22 by Scott75

[TreeBeard]

On 3/11/2025 at 2:26 PM, Michael Hardner said:

They do go outside the box. 

 

Capitulation is an age old way to get “peace”. 

[Michael Hardner]

11 hours ago, TreeBeard said:

Capitulation is an age old way to get “peace”. 

If Zelensky agrees, Trump gets the credit for this.

I have to own my own understanding of the world, whether or not Trump gets credit.

Changing the meaning of words is what THEY do, not me.