Jump to content

Ukraine War


BehoId, The Underminer!

Recommended Posts

President Biden dithered and puttered, piddled and puddled, and fucked it all away.  God dammit can we get ANYTHING right?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-20/russia-ukraine-us-allies-say-biden-strategy-was-too-little-too-late-for-ukraine

Spoiler

Bloomberg) -- In the month Joe Biden has left in office, his administration is focused on using all the resources it has left to deliver military aid for Ukraine and more sanctions aimed at weakening Vladimir Putin’s economy.

Officials in Ukraine and several allied capitals say it’s too little too late. 

Regardless of what Biden does in his final weeks, they said, Ukraine is heading toward a bitter settlement in which President Volodymyr Zelenskiy may have to leave swathes of territory in limbo in exchange for security guarantees that fall short of the NATO membership he’s pleaded for. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that outcome will largely be a consequence of decisions that Biden took, or failed to take, over the past two years.

Despite the US sending more than $90 billion in aid and arms, some allies are frustrated with Biden for stalling on key decisions to deliver more advanced weapons at crucial points in the conflict. 

In the fall of 2022, Ukrainian forces had Putin on the back foot and Zelenskiy was appealing to Biden for more weapons to press home his advantage. But Biden hesitated. His thinking was shaped by the possibility that an escalation might bring Russia’s nuclear arsenal into play, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has suggested. 

“His heart was undoubtedly in the right place — he understood the importance of standing with Ukraine against Russian aggression,” former UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said in an interview. “However, his approach was often too cautious and too hesitant, holding back on delivering the decisive support needed to tip the balance.”

Sullivan has refuted that view, saying on Dec. 7 that the US operation to arm Ukraine both before and during the war had been an “extraordinary feat.” Indeed, US support was critical for ensuring that Ukraine wasn’t overrun, especially at the start of the war, and rallying allies after the invasion.

Other US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, voiced their frustration with some European governments who they said were slow to accept that Putin would invade and then reluctant to ship weapons at all, at least until they learned of the abuses the Russians had perpetrated. Europe has often bristled at tougher sanctions and even as the US position on inviting Ukraine to join NATO appeared to soften, opposition in Berlin and elsewhere remained firm, the officials noted.

The paradox, other officials said, is that the outcome for Ukraine is now similar regardless of whether Biden or Donald Trump are in charge. Trump has called for an immediate ceasefire and his national security nominees have indicated that any deal would likely see Ukraine having to accept freezing its territory along current battle lines and give up its aspiration of joining NATO any time soon.

Behind the incipient blame game lies a deeper truth that frustrates officials on both sides of the Atlantic: for all the talk of European capitals reviving their hard power, the US is still the only NATO country that can tip the balance in a major conflict involving Russia. So the outcome of the war in Ukraine will inevitably be shaped by decisions taken in the White House. 

As a Cold War veteran who joined arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, Biden was obsessed with the danger of nuclear escalation, one of the officials said. When urged to do more US officials repeatedly said that the risks were just too great. Other allies, like Germany, had similar worries. 

The fundamental problem, according to two senior European officials, was that Biden’s strategy seemed geared to preventing Ukraine from losing, without setting out a path to victory. That, the officials said, left Ukraine locked into a drawn-out conflict costing tens of thousands of lives.

But going all-in wasn’t the only option open to Biden. 

Less than a year into the war, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley offered an alternative approach which wouldn’t have incurred the same risk of Russian escalation: push Zelenskiy into talks with Putin. 

“The Russian military is really hurting bad,” Milley said in November 2022. “You want to negotiate at a time when you’re at your strength, and your opponent is at weakness.” 

At that point in the conflict, though, such suggestions were considered beyond the pale. The mantra from western officials, in public and private, was that only Zelenskiy and the Ukrainians would decide when to negotiate.

According to a senior European official, Biden had two strategic options: ramp up support to let Kyiv finish the job or push for peace negotiations. He chose neither. 

While the US did increase weapons supplies ahead of the failed counteroffensive of 2023, two former UK officials said they had tried to convince Biden that much more was needed much more quickly, but they ran into his concerns of nuclear escalation. Those concerns were overstated, one UK official said, because at every stage the Russian threats proved illusory.

US officials argue that, on the contrary, sabotage attacks in Europe and Moscow’s increasingly intensive targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure show that Putin was prepared to escalate so they had to take his nuclear threats seriously. 

“The president has another responsibility that’s unique,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at an event in Washington this week. “Where the buck stops is at that desk, and it has been his responsibility to make sure that Ukraine has everything we can possibly provide to deal with the aggression — but also to avoid a direct conflict with with Russia. We don’t need a direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.”

Officials in Washington said that the US ultimately sent everything it could, when stocks allowed and when in their assessment capabilities made sense on the battlefield. To that effect, the ramp-up in ammunition supplies has helped to narrow a Russian advantage which had seen them firing several times more shells than the Ukrainians earlier in the conflict.  

Us officials also argue that no single capability is a silver bullet and that Ukraine is now impeded more by a shortage of manpower than weapons.

CIA chief William Burns said earlier this year that there was “a genuine risk of a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons” in the fall of 2022, but that the US and its allies shouldn’t be intimidated by what he called Moscow’s saber-rattling. Burns met his Russian counterpart in Turkey that November to warn him against the use of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, as Biden agonized over whether to send more air defenses, longer range missiles, or fighter jets to Kyiv, Putin trained his missiles on Ukraine’s cities. That weakened Kyiv’s economy and the resolve of its people, degrading the war-torn country’s ability to fight back, while Moscow was granted crucial time to prepare and adapt its defenses.

“We do believe that earlier and more would have been quite decisive,” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze said in an interview. “But it is what it is.”

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Parliament said:

President Biden dithered and puttered, piddled and puddled, and fucked it all away.  God dammit can we get ANYTHING right?

 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-12-20/russia-ukraine-us-allies-say-biden-strategy-was-too-little-too-late-for-ukraine

  Reveal hidden contents

 

Bloomberg) -- In the month Joe Biden has left in office, his administration is focused on using all the resources it has left to deliver military aid for Ukraine and more sanctions aimed at weakening Vladimir Putin’s economy.

Officials in Ukraine and several allied capitals say it’s too little too late. 

Regardless of what Biden does in his final weeks, they said, Ukraine is heading toward a bitter settlement in which President Volodymyr Zelenskiy may have to leave swathes of territory in limbo in exchange for security guarantees that fall short of the NATO membership he’s pleaded for. The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said that outcome will largely be a consequence of decisions that Biden took, or failed to take, over the past two years.

Despite the US sending more than $90 billion in aid and arms, some allies are frustrated with Biden for stalling on key decisions to deliver more advanced weapons at crucial points in the conflict. 

In the fall of 2022, Ukrainian forces had Putin on the back foot and Zelenskiy was appealing to Biden for more weapons to press home his advantage. But Biden hesitated. His thinking was shaped by the possibility that an escalation might bring Russia’s nuclear arsenal into play, National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan has suggested. 

“His heart was undoubtedly in the right place — he understood the importance of standing with Ukraine against Russian aggression,” former UK Defense Secretary Grant Shapps said in an interview. “However, his approach was often too cautious and too hesitant, holding back on delivering the decisive support needed to tip the balance.”

Sullivan has refuted that view, saying on Dec. 7 that the US operation to arm Ukraine both before and during the war had been an “extraordinary feat.” Indeed, US support was critical for ensuring that Ukraine wasn’t overrun, especially at the start of the war, and rallying allies after the invasion.

Other US officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, voiced their frustration with some European governments who they said were slow to accept that Putin would invade and then reluctant to ship weapons at all, at least until they learned of the abuses the Russians had perpetrated. Europe has often bristled at tougher sanctions and even as the US position on inviting Ukraine to join NATO appeared to soften, opposition in Berlin and elsewhere remained firm, the officials noted.

The paradox, other officials said, is that the outcome for Ukraine is now similar regardless of whether Biden or Donald Trump are in charge. Trump has called for an immediate ceasefire and his national security nominees have indicated that any deal would likely see Ukraine having to accept freezing its territory along current battle lines and give up its aspiration of joining NATO any time soon.

Behind the incipient blame game lies a deeper truth that frustrates officials on both sides of the Atlantic: for all the talk of European capitals reviving their hard power, the US is still the only NATO country that can tip the balance in a major conflict involving Russia. So the outcome of the war in Ukraine will inevitably be shaped by decisions taken in the White House. 

As a Cold War veteran who joined arms control negotiations with the Soviet Union, Biden was obsessed with the danger of nuclear escalation, one of the officials said. When urged to do more US officials repeatedly said that the risks were just too great. Other allies, like Germany, had similar worries. 

The fundamental problem, according to two senior European officials, was that Biden’s strategy seemed geared to preventing Ukraine from losing, without setting out a path to victory. That, the officials said, left Ukraine locked into a drawn-out conflict costing tens of thousands of lives.

But going all-in wasn’t the only option open to Biden. 

Less than a year into the war, then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley offered an alternative approach which wouldn’t have incurred the same risk of Russian escalation: push Zelenskiy into talks with Putin. 

“The Russian military is really hurting bad,” Milley said in November 2022. “You want to negotiate at a time when you’re at your strength, and your opponent is at weakness.” 

At that point in the conflict, though, such suggestions were considered beyond the pale. The mantra from western officials, in public and private, was that only Zelenskiy and the Ukrainians would decide when to negotiate.

According to a senior European official, Biden had two strategic options: ramp up support to let Kyiv finish the job or push for peace negotiations. He chose neither. 

While the US did increase weapons supplies ahead of the failed counteroffensive of 2023, two former UK officials said they had tried to convince Biden that much more was needed much more quickly, but they ran into his concerns of nuclear escalation. Those concerns were overstated, one UK official said, because at every stage the Russian threats proved illusory.

US officials argue that, on the contrary, sabotage attacks in Europe and Moscow’s increasingly intensive targeting of Ukraine’s energy infrastructure show that Putin was prepared to escalate so they had to take his nuclear threats seriously. 

“The president has another responsibility that’s unique,” Secretary of State Antony Blinken said at an event in Washington this week. “Where the buck stops is at that desk, and it has been his responsibility to make sure that Ukraine has everything we can possibly provide to deal with the aggression — but also to avoid a direct conflict with with Russia. We don’t need a direct conflict between nuclear-armed powers.”

Officials in Washington said that the US ultimately sent everything it could, when stocks allowed and when in their assessment capabilities made sense on the battlefield. To that effect, the ramp-up in ammunition supplies has helped to narrow a Russian advantage which had seen them firing several times more shells than the Ukrainians earlier in the conflict.  

Us officials also argue that no single capability is a silver bullet and that Ukraine is now impeded more by a shortage of manpower than weapons.

CIA chief William Burns said earlier this year that there was “a genuine risk of a potential use of tactical nuclear weapons” in the fall of 2022, but that the US and its allies shouldn’t be intimidated by what he called Moscow’s saber-rattling. Burns met his Russian counterpart in Turkey that November to warn him against the use of nuclear weapons.

Nevertheless, as Biden agonized over whether to send more air defenses, longer range missiles, or fighter jets to Kyiv, Putin trained his missiles on Ukraine’s cities. That weakened Kyiv’s economy and the resolve of its people, degrading the war-torn country’s ability to fight back, while Moscow was granted crucial time to prepare and adapt its defenses.

“We do believe that earlier and more would have been quite decisive,” Latvian Foreign Minister Baiba Braze said in an interview. “But it is what it is.”

 

"Americans always do the right thing, after exhausting every other option" - Winston Churchill

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Captainant said:

"Americans always do the right thing, after exhausting every other option" - Winston Churchill

Germany should give the US a timetable to withdraw all military personnel. We’re more trouble than we are worth to them at this point. It would really fuck up our ability to project strength in the Middle East and Africa and

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Sawbonz is Putin?

mindblown.gif

 

 

1) Sawbonz said that Germany should demand the U.S. leave

2) You asked why this has not already been done i.e. why Germany has not already asked the U.S. to leave

3) I asked "wouldn't this be what Putin wants?"  i.e. Isn't the U.S. leaving Germany what Putin wants?



 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Hornius Emeritus said:


Wouldn't that be what Putin wants?

Who cares what Putin wants? The US needs to be in Germany way more than the Germans need us there. Germany could end all of Trumps bullshit posturing about nato by telling us to gtfo

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Who cares what Putin wants? The US needs to be in Germany way more than the Germans need us there. Germany could end all of Trumps bullshit posturing about nato by telling us to gtfo


I agree with all of this.

I care what Putin wants because presumably what Putin wants is to see is division between the U.S and Germany, which would be bad for both the U.S. and Germany.



 

  • Hook 'Em 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Sawbonz said:

Who cares what Putin wants? The US needs to be in Germany way more than the Germans need us there. Germany could end all of Trumps bullshit posturing about nato by telling us to gtfo

That’s not how any of this works. But you are apparently teetering on being a Putin puppet. Cause that is actually how this works. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Hornius Emeritus said:


I agree with all of this.

I care what Putin wants because presumably what Putin wants is to see is division between the U.S and Germany, which would be bad for both the U.S. and Germany.



 

Yes and no. At some point NATO has to stand up to the bully. Germany telling the US to straighten up or leave goes a long way towards that. If that makes Putin happy in the short run who gives a shit. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Anastasis said:

That’s not how any of this works. But you are apparently teetering on being a Putin puppet. Cause that is actually how this works. 

Germany is our de facto forward staging area for the Middle East and Africa. Ukraine has proven NATO doesn’t need the US to handle Russia. Of course it will never happen because $$$$

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, Macanudo said:

Me.

Poutine is some over-rated shit.

Putin would love to see us withdraw. I don't think we will. Germany 1- needs US forces there for its own internal shit, including small town economies. 2- They know the threat is real but their population will not militarize to defend the Eastern Borders. This ain't 1939-1943. 3- NATO does not want to face Russia alone.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Poutine is some over-rated shit.

Putin would love to see us withdraw. I don't think we will. Germany 1- needs US forces there for its own internal shit, including small town economies. 2- They know the threat is real but their population will not militarize to defend the Eastern Borders. This ain't 1939-1943. 3- NATO does not want to face Russia alone.

 

if Poland and the the Swede-Finn coalition joined Ukraine in facing Russia today in a conventional war in its current T-64 tank using, Nork dependent situation,they would soon wreck Russia’s shit.   IMO.  

Hell, Belarus might depose  Lukashenko and join them as the Poles swept through on their way to meet up with the Finns driving south to Moscow. Whether that leads to tactical nukes is another story.  

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Gatorubet said:

if Poland and the the Swede-Finn coalition joined Ukraine in facing Russia today in a conventional war in its current T-64 tank using, Nork dependent situation,they would soon wreck Russia’s shit.   IMO.  

Hell, Belarus might depose  Lukashenko and join them as the Poles swept through on their way to meet up with the Finns driving south to Moscow. Whether that leads to tactical nukes is another story.  

Goes tactical and those nations cannot hit back. A weakness in NATO. It needs the US deterrent.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Goes tactical and those nations cannot hit back. A weakness in NATO. It needs the US deterrent.

Per my last sentence, I totally agree. I have no idea how dispersed Russia’s tactical nuclear arms are, or if an early morning start war shock and awe attack with throwing everything they have on energy production and known tactical storage facilities can delay a response long enough for a couple sane generals and oligarchs about to lose all to depose him?

That is a fun war game wet dream, but highly improbable IRL.  But if North Korea can send actual troops to the front, it would be fun to see Poles and some Baltic State troops enter the fry as well.  Russia, who escalated the war by using foreign country troops, can hardly complain if foreign troops join Ukrainians in the trenches, no?

if Ukraine can hang on through 2025 in some form of conventional war, there’s a pretty good chance Russia will go down economically.   If Trump takes us out of the fight, the countries who are next on Russia’s takeover list should send some ground troops and see if that is a red line or not.

 

  • Hook 'Em 2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/21/2024 at 2:08 PM, Gatorubet said:

Per my last sentence, I totally agree. I have no idea how dispersed Russia’s tactical nuclear arms are, or if an early morning start war shock and awe attack with throwing everything they have on energy production and known tactical storage facilities can delay a response long enough for a couple sane generals and oligarchs about to lose all to depose him?

That is a fun war game wet dream, but highly improbable IRL.  But if North Korea can send actual troops to the front, it would be fun to see Poles and some Baltic State troops enter the fry as well.  Russia, who escalated the war by using foreign country troops, can hardly complain if foreign troops join Ukrainians in the trenches, no?

if Ukraine can hang on through 2025 in some form of conventional war, there’s a pretty good chance Russia will go down economically.   If Trump takes us out of the fight, the countries who are next on Russia’s takeover list should send some ground troops and see if that is a red line or not.

 

What should happen is someone with half a brain tells tfg "there's money to be had in beating Russia."  Then the US will get behind it.  Will be interesting to see what the GOP hawks in the Senate do.  

  • Like 1
  • Drool 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/23/2024 at 10:02 AM, Chad Fuck said:

What should happen is someone with half a brain tells tfg "there's money to be had in beating Russia."  Then the US will get behind it.  Will be interesting to see what the GOP hawks in the Senate do.  

This is really the play.

The motivation of the incoming administration is one concept - "what's in it for me (Trump)?"  Lay out a scenario where keeping up the fight benefits Trump, and he'll go with it full-force.  Leave it as-is, with there being more in it for Trump if he sucks Putin's dick and cups his balls, and Ukraine is fucked.

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

This is really the play.

The motivation of the incoming administration is one concept - "what's in it for me (Trump)?"  Lay out a scenario where keeping up the fight benefits Trump, and he'll go with it full-force.  Leave it as-is, with there being more in it for Trump if he sucks Putin's dick and cups his balls, and Ukraine is fucked.

Tell him he can have the Kremlin Casino. And we will embalm him like Lenin.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 3/6/2022 at 7:23 PM, Anastasis said:

Why are you @ing me? Do you feel bad about falling for the bounty story disinformation and this is your way of compensating?

dO yOu FeEl BaD FaLlInG fOr ThE bOuNtY….

Quote

The program, as per the ex-NDS sources, averaged $200,000 per killed American or coalition soldier, with the payment being disbursed to the network responsible. There were smaller allowances for killed Afghan troops and security officers. One former NDS official estimated that Russia paid a total of approximately $30 million to the Taliban via the scheme, a fraction of the $3 to $4 billion the CIA spent on Operation Cyclone, the covert program to fund, arm, and train the mujahideen to drive the Soviet Army out of Afghanistan in the 1980s. “I think $30 million was a small amount to give the United States a bloody nose,” one former NDS officer said. Another ex-NDS source claimed that at least that much had also been spent on funding other armed groups opposing the U.S.-supported Afghan government, a claim partly corroborated by data showing close contacts between the GRU spymasters and members of Afghan resistance movements dating back to 2014.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

Rehashing of shit that’s been shot down by centcom commander and secretary of defense. Dunny thr timeline on this one if you step back. 

Mind elaborating? There was a lot of speculation this happened. Just like a shit ton of IED material came from Iran or Russia stock.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, InkaUtexas said:

Mind elaborating? There was a lot of speculation this happened. Just like a shit ton of IED material came from Iran or Russia stock.

Speculation, yes. Serious charges require serious evidence. What the propaganda artist posts is the same sourcing that got ran out back in 2020. Let me know when the commander of  Centcom and Secretary of Defense change their assessments. 

 

Military officials say they have looked hard but found no other evidence to corroborate that such a program existed.

In September, Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, whose remit includes Afghanistan, told NBC News, "It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me."

"We continue to look for that evidence," the general added. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue."

McKenzie's comments reflected a consensus view in the military. Defense Secretary Mark Esper told the House Armed Services Committee in July that "All the defense intelligence agencies have been unable to corroborate that report. "That has not changed, a senior official with direct knowledge told NBC News Thursday.

McKenzie said in September that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

A U.S. military official familiar with the intelligence added at the time that after a review of the intelligence around each attack against Americans going back several years, none has been tied to any Russian incentive payments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Anastasis said:

Speculation, yes. Serious charges require serious evidence. What the propaganda artist posts is the same sourcing that got ran out back in 2020. Let me know when the commander of  Centcom and Secretary of Defense change their assessments. 

 

Military officials say they have looked hard but found no other evidence to corroborate that such a program existed.

In September, Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, whose remit includes Afghanistan, told NBC News, "It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me."

"We continue to look for that evidence," the general added. "I just haven't seen it yet. But … it's not a closed issue."

McKenzie's comments reflected a consensus view in the military. Defense Secretary Mark Esper told the House Armed Services Committee in July that "All the defense intelligence agencies have been unable to corroborate that report. "That has not changed, a senior official with direct knowledge told NBC News Thursday.

McKenzie said in September that if he could establish that the Russians were offering payments to kill Americans, he would push to forcefully respond. But the intelligence is far from conclusive, he said.

"I found what they presented to me very concerning, very worrisome. I just couldn't see the final connection, so I sent my guys back and said, look, keep digging. So we have continued to dig and look because this involves potential threats to U.S. forces, it's open," he said, adding, "I just haven't seen anything that closes that gap yet."

A U.S. military official familiar with the intelligence added at the time that after a review of the intelligence around each attack against Americans going back several years, none has been tied to any Russian incentive payments.

Gracias. TBH. the Russians I spoke with liked us there. We drew enough of their radicals from the Caucus to make life a bit easier. And there were a lot of Russians working in Kabul throughout the time I was in and out. So 2003-2011.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, InkaUtexas said:

Gracias. TBH. the Russians I spoke with liked us there. We drew enough of their radicals from the Caucus to make life a bit easier. And there were a lot of Russians working in Kabul throughout the time I was in and out. So 2003-2011.

This is new reporting and investigation, Ana is dissembling. 

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

The Insider was able to substantiate several key details provided by the four sources based on data from leaked email accounts belonging to three Unit 29155 operatives. The investigation was able to reconstruct the travel patterns of Afghan couriers, comparing them with the timing of known Taliban attacks on U.S. and coalition forces. The network mapped by The Insider — which includes both the GRU handlers responsible for the program and their Afghan agents — appears to contain information previously unknown to the NDS and its U.S. intelligence partners.

 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

LOL. Goldfish food. The bounty claim specifically is based on the same detainee humint that could not be corroborated previously. This time framed as coming from NDS sources. But you known the sourcing, it says so in your article. And accusing others of dissembling is just icing on the cake. 

Edited by Anastasis
  • Fuck You 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

LOL. Goldfish food. The bounty claim specifically is based on the same detainee humint that could not be corroborated previously. This time framed as coming from NDS sources. But you known the sourcing, it says so in your article. And accusing others of dissembling is just icing on the cake. 

New evidence that further corroborates the old evidence— which was never “shot down” it was not confirmed. 
 

Dissembling, misrepresenting goal-tending for Russia. You got your trifecta. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

New evidence that further corroborates the old evidence— which was never “shot down” it was not confirmed. 
 

Dissembling, misrepresenting goal-tending for Russia. You got your trifecta. 

Cite the new evidence that corroborates the bounty claim specifically. Should be easy. I mean I can cite the part where you regurgitated the old evidence in like 30 seconds. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or lets try something different. A wager. If commander of Centcom or Secretary of Defense, both of which are on the record wrt this subject, issue a statement where they substantively change their assessment in the next 60 days, I won't post on CR or DT for 180 days. If after 60 days they do not, you don't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

Cite the new evidence that corroborates the bounty claim specifically. Should be easy. I mean I can cite the part where you regurgitated the old evidence in like 30 seconds. 

I’ll stand by The Insider story, which clearly articulates that the new evidence helps to back up the original claim. Which was never “disinformation” and was never “shot down.”  That was always your misrepresentation.  I’m not waiting for a canceled check with Cyrillic in the memo line. Intelligent people can read the article and compare it to your spin on Trump-era official statements. Weiss and  Grozev have rarely been wrong. 
 

Your wager proposal is the stupidest thing I’ve read on Surly.  I’m sure Hesgeth will be right on this LOL. 

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites



×
×
  • Create New...