I was--unfortunately--pro-Iraq invasion when W unfurled the ^Mission Accomplished!^ banner, so I know a little bit about hubris and being proven wrong. Haha. i believe the cia (in conjunction with many in the msm) are not allowing (or diluted) certain information regarding the ukraine war to get through. I know you don't like junior (to say nothing of hannity), but here's an alternate take to Zel's inevitable victory. j ps. glad you're preaching (even if we're reading different gospels)!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtOJfVyne9w
There is definitely information we're not seeing for operational security purposes, as it would just give away strategy to Russian actors, and both the Kremlin and Kyiv have vested interests in making their efforts appear more successful than they are. The youtubers I watch rely more on confirmation-through-geolocation than on the word of either country's MOD.
As for RFK Jr's analysis, he makes a lot of assumptions that are patently false. One big one that is a big hit among English-speaking Russian agents(witting or unwitting), was Jim Baker's famous promise that NATO would not expand one inch eastward, which completely mischaracterizes the nature of the alliance. It betrays either a lack of fundamental comprehension of what NATO is, or, much more likely, someone who was caught on the record lying to tell someone what they wanted to hear.
The base assumption when someone talks about "NATO expansion" that is that NATO is an entity that is intended to threaten the Soviet Union, and later Russia, with expansion and invasion. And that is just demonstrably incorrect. It is a defensive alliance, and as Russia's position on the world stage has grown more and more volatile and aggressive, more and more countries have begged to join the alliance for their own protection. That isn't expansion. That isn't an aggressive posture toward Russia-- it's a response to Russia's aggression. A dozen counties in Western Europe have requested membership not to threaten Russia, but to protect themselves from Russia. If Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO, Russia would never have invaded. That's the exact argument they have against Ukrainian membership in NATO, though they don't say it: they can't conquer Ukraine if it's in NATO.
I was--unfortunately--pro-Iraq invasion when W unfurled the ^Mission Accomplished!^ banner, so I know a little bit about hubris and being proven wrong. Haha. i believe the cia (in conjunction with many in the msm) are not allowing (or diluted) certain information regarding the ukraine war to get through. I know you don't like junior (to say nothing of hannity), but here's an alternate take to Zel's inevitable victory. j ps. glad you're preaching (even if we're reading different gospels)!! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qtOJfVyne9w
There is definitely information we're not seeing for operational security purposes, as it would just give away strategy to Russian actors, and both the Kremlin and Kyiv have vested interests in making their efforts appear more successful than they are. The youtubers I watch rely more on confirmation-through-geolocation than on the word of either country's MOD.
As for RFK Jr's analysis, he makes a lot of assumptions that are patently false. One big one that is a big hit among English-speaking Russian agents(witting or unwitting), was Jim Baker's famous promise that NATO would not expand one inch eastward, which completely mischaracterizes the nature of the alliance. It betrays either a lack of fundamental comprehension of what NATO is, or, much more likely, someone who was caught on the record lying to tell someone what they wanted to hear.
The base assumption when someone talks about "NATO expansion" that is that NATO is an entity that is intended to threaten the Soviet Union, and later Russia, with expansion and invasion. And that is just demonstrably incorrect. It is a defensive alliance, and as Russia's position on the world stage has grown more and more volatile and aggressive, more and more countries have begged to join the alliance for their own protection. That isn't expansion. That isn't an aggressive posture toward Russia-- it's a response to Russia's aggression. A dozen counties in Western Europe have requested membership not to threaten Russia, but to protect themselves from Russia. If Ukraine had been allowed to join NATO, Russia would never have invaded. That's the exact argument they have against Ukrainian membership in NATO, though they don't say it: they can't conquer Ukraine if it's in NATO.