placeholder

No, they're not fighting for freedom. Ordinary Ukrainian citizens are. And they've already forced the Russian army to abandon one arena.

I know that's what Russia wants neo-nazi to mean. But on what rational basis does being neo-Nazi equate to being anti-Russian.? Who gave Russia the authority to drastically change the meaning of words? And if neo-Nazi does mean anti-Russian, then by that understanding, it should no longer have any relation to the Nazi party of Germany or its ideology. And exactly what percentage of the Ukrainian armed forces consists of the Azov battalion? It's vanishingly small. The Azov battalion began as the military arm of a fascist political party in Ukraine. In the last election that party gott got about 2 percent of the vote. And in wartime, as the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. The Azov battalion may be repugnant but they are excellent soldiers.. What's more, their goal, once they defeated the insurrectionists in Donbas, was to overthrow the Ukrainian govt. So not really strong allies of the current govt. And of course, in WW2, America's most important ally in the fight against the Nazis was Russia. As you may recall, Stalin had 3 million Ukrainians starve to death. And that was only a fraction of the atrocities he committed. So does that mean fighting against Nazi Germany was a bad thing? And by the way, the Pew Institute did a survey of anti-Semitic sentiment in Eastern Europe and the Balkans. You know which nation had the lowest percentage of anti-Semitic sentiment? Ukraine. Those people are really incompetent at being Nazis. And you claimed that Israel supported the Azov regiment. Actually it was the billionaire, Kolomoisky. Just because he's an Israeli citizen, does that mean Israel was responsible for this? Seems like you're treading pretty close to, if not crossing the line into, anti-Semitic territory. What makes your slur particularly suspect, is the Israel has held itself aloof from the conflict. It has its own local reasons for not wanting to antagonize Russia. And it's gotten a lot of flak for that.

Zelensky was not identified as a crook. It may be sleazy what he did with the money he earned from his very successful career as a comedian, an actor and an owner of a production company. But no evidence to suggest that he stole state funds.

An office meeting with a few drinks...and vomiting.

Below is a link to an excellent article explaining not just how weak Durham's evidence was, but how it actually contradicted the alleged grounds for launching it in the first place: John Durham Tried to Prove Trump’s Russiagate Theory. Instead He Debunked It. Trump’s prosecutor face-plants. Donald Trump and William Barr have spent years alleging that the Russia investigation was a criminal plot by the FBI. The Department of Justice’s inspector general found the Russia investigation was adequately predicated, but Barr disagreed. So he selected a prosecutor, John Durham, who would supposedly uncover this scheme and begin frog-marching its perpetrators to justice. https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2022/05/john-durham-michael-sussman-verdict-not-guilty-russia-alfabank-trump-barr-fbi-clinton.html

Well, fortunately, the performance of Russia's air force has been extremely poor: The Overlooked Reason Russia’s Invasion Is Floundering Russia has failed to understand the importance of airpower. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/05/russian-military-air-force-failure-ukraine/629803/

What you failed to note is that the Senate Committee found plenty of evidence for collusion between officials of the Trump campaign and the Russians. And that Trump made it very clear the pardons were not off the table for those who could possess knowledge that would incriminate him. And pardoning them is exactly what he did.

When you read the words "some people say", and no names are given, you can be pretty sure that fraud is about to be perpetuated. You are really going to seriously contend that Russia lost a huge number materiel and men, just to do a feint? Do you have any idea of how ridiculous such a claim is? This is like tempting someone into a fight by promising to use only one arm but instead of tying it back you cut it off. And I guess Putin's firing of the generals in charge of the Kiev "feint" was another feint?

Zelensky was legitimately wealthy before he became President. Or is it only convenient to invoke his show business history to denigrate him? And where does the "perhaps hundreds of millions" come from? You got any evidence for that? Next the Russians will be telling us that this Jewish President is a Nazi and you'll believe it....oh wait a minute...

Even if the transportation infrastructure was undamaged, there's a reason grain is moved by ships. The volume is huge.

Thanks for answering the second part. Now what about the first part? i.e. "And is that a good thing to shoot at people just because you don't like them or is that a bad thing? "

This gives the lie to your contention that Russians didn't want to conquer all of Ukraine: "Former Russian Federal Security Service (FSB) officer Igor Girkin (also known as Strelkov) condemned Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s statements about the priority of the “special operation” in Ukraine being the liberation of the Donbas.[3] Girkin claimed that the Kremlin has forgone the ideological underpinnings of the conflict by focusing the conflict on the Donbas, rather than the entirety of Ukraine. Girkin complained that Kremlin officials are no longer questioning the legitimacy of the existence of Ukraine and that the concepts of “denazification” and “demilitarization” have been forgotten." https://www.understandingwar.org/backgrounder/russian-offensive-campaign-assessment-may-30 It seems you've forgotten them, too.

This website offers excellent analysis and info on the war https://www.understandingwar.org/ It's not obvious but click on the heading of each entry. That will take you to the complete text.

And is that a good thing to shoot at people just because you don't like them or is that a bad thing? Let me put this another way just to make this easy for you. What usually happens to people who who shoot at other people just because they don't like them? Are they given pats on the back? Or are they put in prison or maybe even shot and killed?

And they need the same level of training. Without that training how secure are they? And what's more important, how secure are the people around them?

If that's true, what do you think that says about the people who own guns?

Just because someone is an ethnic Russian that doesn't mean that they desire to be part of Russia. And Donbas was not handed over to Ukraine a few decades ago. It's been part of Ukraine for 100 years. As for your crocodile tears shed for the "poor Ukrainians", maybe you should reserve them for the Russian troops forced to fight this battle. Their morale is low. That's hardly the case on the Ukrainian side of the conflict.

I get it. Russia sent troops advancing towards Kiev but had no actual intention of occupying the city and installing a Russia-friendly government. It was just a badly misunderstood holiday outing.

Can you please share with us the actual number of losses, along with the source you obtained it from?

Nonsense. What the continuing failure of the Durham investigation shows was the validity of the finding by Inspector General Horowitz that the FBI investigation had sound predicates for investigating the Trump campaigns connections to Russia. As you clearly don't recall, and maybe never knew, Barr had been insinuating that the FBI had participated in a conspiracy to bring down Trump. It was a ridiculous idea since the FBI had actually kept the investigation secret until after the election. When Horowitx completed his investigation that there was no such conspiracy not just Barr, but Durham also posted public notices that they disagreed with the findings. This kind of behavior was unprecedented and clearly unethical. That said, here we are about 3 years later and guess what, Durham's case against Sussman was not that the FBI conspired against Trump, but rather that it was duped by Michael Sussman. Just the opposite of what he was contending. And what you don't seem to understand is that for the charges to stick, there would have to be 2 assertions that needed to be proved: 1) That Sussman lied 2) That the lie was material to the conduct of the investigation. So even if Sussman lied, that wouldn't be enough. And the jury would be asked to believe that the FBI would not factor Sussman's employment into account when he shared evidence with them.. That would be a remarkable example of naivete. And by the way, the only conviction that Durham has gotten so far was based on evidence that came from the Horowitz investigation. And the offense for which that DOJ lawyer, Clinesmith was convicted, is a very minor one. Does anyone besides me remember how right wingers were claiming that scores of high ranking government officials were going to be tried and convicted for conspiring to illegally undermine the Trump administration? So far the score is one lawyer at the bottom of the food chain. It is to laugh.

Proekt,, a Ukrainian organization dedicated to investigative reporting, did a detailed investigation of the rumors about Putin's health. Here's a link to it: https://www.proekt.media/en/investigation-en/putin-health/

To be accurate, it wasn't Putin who claimed that Hitler was a Jew. In fact, for what it's worth, Putin apologized for that assertion from Lavrov. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-61339749

Ever heard of polio? "CDC recommends that children get four doses of polio vaccine. They should get one dose at each of the following ages: 2 months old, 4 months old, 6 through 18 months old, and 4 through 6 years old. https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/public/index.html#:~:text=CDC recommends that children get four doses of polio vaccine,4 through 6 years old." And because you aren't "entirely certain what the others are", you think that makes the argument weaker. Actually, it makes the case that you don't have enough knowledge to judge the evidence. FYI: Pneumococcal Vaccine Recommendations How many times is PCV vaccine given? "Vaccinate all children younger than 2 years old with PCV13. The primary series consists of 3 doses routinely given at 2, 4, and 6 months of age. You can administer the first dose as early as 6 weeks of age. CDC recommends a fourth (booster) dose at 12 through 15 months of age." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/hcp/administering-vaccine.html Diphtheria, Tetanus, and Pertussis Vaccine Recommendations "Give infants and children 5 doses of DTaP. Give one dose at each of these ages: 2 months, 4 months, 6 months, 15 through 18 months, and 4 through 6 years... Give adolescents a single dose of Tdap, preferably at 11 to 12 years of age." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/dtap-tdap-td/hcp/recommendations.html There are plenty of other vaccines that require multiple inoculations.

As you'll note, I didn't claim the report was propaganda. Just that the comment disparaging the story based in its appearance in the Mirror was irrelevant since the story was widely reported.

Well, the report covers the period from 2016 to 2019. Who was President then...? hmmmm And what are you getting at about Tesla and Exxon? What does the stock market have to do with Tesla's environmental credentials? And are you suggesting that Exxon is popular with environmentalists?