_kbh_

19 ms·

151.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The US has had a heavy hand in this situation for a decade. You can argue that it's the right thing to do, but it's not like the US just got involved once Russia invaded. It’s worth remembering that this war actually started
152.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Sounds fair, $200 to $325 more per month ($6 to $11 per day) to partake in an illegal war. Russia shouldn't be there, BUT neither should we OR NATO member states This is all just 4ucking around with thermo-nuclear war, the hubris
153.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
If sanctions aren’t working and Russias economy is better then before the invasion then why are they reporting a budget deficit?. https://www.reuters.com/markets/europe/what-are-russias-opti... And why is there oi
154.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> He leaked documents from British and Australian intelligence according to his wiki page, so he obviously had broad access. I’m paraphrasing, but he’s specifically talked in interviews that he had access to almost everything. Whilst thi
155.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The classified stuff wasn’t really that siloed. He had access to everything CIA, DIA, NSA, etc. He talked about this in his book. Searching for evidence of aliens was one of the first things he did when he got access. Not to be pedanti
156.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
His source is literally a Russian propaganda photoshop of a legitimate leak. You can see both versions at the following link. https://twitter.com/yarotrof/status/1644226867623280641 He claims its been wiped from t
157.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> As I've said repeatedly, the first casualty of war is the truth - applies to both sides. You keep repeating this buts its meaningless, you won't even accept you got duped by Russian propaganda. I literally posted a link to th
158.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> What makes you think he is a "nut job"? And how do you justify making baseless ad-hominem attacks instead of coherent arguments against his proposed policies or positions. Isn't that kind of smear better suited to Reddit
159.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> For the US intelligence community to finally admit the existence of 46 US-funded biolabs in the Ukraine and specifically not deny they were bioweapons labs, is unfortunately as close to an admission as we are ever going to get. This is
160.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Although not widely reported in the media, I would stop short at arguing these claims of ethnically targeted bio-weapons are unsupported. See my comment further down where I provide multiple sources to back the claims of US funded biow
161.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> If it wasn't already clear, I support RFK Jr and hold his foreign policy in high regard. I also deeply respect his principled approach to telling American voters the truth. Uncomfortable truths are often unpopular at first, but be
162.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> The 7 to 1 casualty rate came from the classified US military documents that were leaked in April 2023 [1] These documents were leaked to a Discord channel and have now been scrubbed from the internet. You are unfortunately quoting a f
163.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> RFK Jr actually alluded to this on video in the exchange that led to the NY Post and NY Times articles mentioned up thread. Id stop mentioning RFK Jr he actually legitimately reduces the credibility of what you're trying to asert.
164.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> I fail to see how anyone can claim this is anything but a proxy war. Russia themselves talks about unifying Russia and how "1991" was a tragedy (1991 being when Ukraine got its independence) in their victory article that they
165.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> "Military target" is a curious phrase given that this seems to be civilian infrastructure (of course it's probably important for the military as well). Pre-war, looks like the bridge saw around 15k in daily traffic. htt
166.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> I'll bet be the US will never do it. They pushed the Ukraine to disarm for a reason and that reason still stands -- no one wants them selling warheads to the highest bidder. The reason was to try and stop nuclear proliferation, no
167.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
That isn't a counter to a primary source that says he never discussed it. Although I do know that NATO Expansion is another historical grievance Russia has (getting lots of these aren't they) because Russia is very much pro being
168.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> It looks like you are asking in bad faith and already know the answer. When circumstances change treaties become obsolete. Ever heard of Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, for example? [4] Sweet so since the Budapest memorandum is out we c
169.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> USSR demonstrated good faith when it greenlighted reunification of Germany and got assurances that NATO won't expand to the east. Look how that worked out. Of all the Russian propaganda you pick the one piece that was super easy t
170.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> It's as bizarre as saying "What are Ukrainian civilians are doing in the Ukraine which is active war zone?" No it’s not, most of the Ukrainians aren’t holidaying in an active war zone they are just trying to live. Who pu
171.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> It's bizarre that you find the murder of two civilians and a girl becoming an orphan funny. What's wrong with you? What were three civilians doing on a bridge that is not only in an active war zone but has successfully target
172.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> It was stolen from the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic and 'gifted' to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic by a man [0] who used to the head of Ukrainian Communist party before becoming the leader of the USSR
173.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Yes, Crimea was stolen in 1954, but in 2014 it reunited with Russia. I see your back with your delusions. How exactly did the USSR which had control of Crimea exactly steal Crimea from itself, to give it to a part of itself?. Don'
174.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> And before someone accuses me of not badmouthing "the enemy" enough, know that even Ukraine is still importing billions worth of Russian gas and petrol products and thus financing the war against itself. Funny how that works.
175.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Maybe they shouldn’t have invested money on land that was literally stolen from another country. Sucks to be them.
176.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
Once again no answer, as I said you would never answer. Because you’re asking the Ukrainians to put their own family into a wood chipper for your own comfort. Because this is clearly not your fight and you clearly have nothing in this confl
177.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> 1. They likely won't occupy all of Ukraine, but I doubt it was their initial goal. If you look at the TAS article it's made clear that their end goal was reunification of Ukraine and Russia. You can read it yourself here. ht
178.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> Unfortunately, in Ukraine both sides are cannon fodder again because modern anti air defenses are so good that the fighting relies on 155mm howitzers again. Which NATO has just run out of and has no capacity to manufacture in sufficien
179.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> If that’s what you’ve let yourself be convinced is the present then, boy, are you not going to enjoy the future. The only one who's convinced themselves is you, you've convinced yourself that the Russians are saints who only
180.
by _kbh_ 3y ago
> NATO is in a direct proxy war with Russia, who has repeatedly said that they consider this war an "existential threat". Ah so Russia can take whatever it wants and do whatever it wants as long as it considers it an 'exis

More ›