And as far as the firebombing? It could be an agent of NATO in there doing it.
The grocery store video could have come from any time in the past two years, and could be anywhere in Ukraine, Belarus, or Russia.
These folks have no ability for critical thought, they just want to bleev what they want. . .
All this needs far better sourcing, and they are such isolated incidents, that, in the bigger picture, none of it matters.
Things are looking pretty dire for Ukraine.
The only good news I have heard for Ukraine that is at all reliable, is that Russia have been depending far too much on Donbas irregulars in the battle for Kharkiv. AND? That is where there are the fewest Nazis, and most well trained Ukrainian regulars by NATO. If Russia can't come up with the materials and manpower, it will not reach its objectives, at all, and there will be a Ukraine victory.
I haven't heard much about the Odessa campaign though. . . I think they are still finishing up from, and de-Nazificiation in Maruipol.
May 14, 2022 (3 day old video)
Russian girl Natasha shows a shopping mall and grocery store.
There are many current Youtube videos by regular Russian citizens showing how life is today in Russia.
May 14, 2022 (3 day old video)
Russian girl Natasha shows a shopping mall and grocery store.
There are many current Youtube videos by regular Russian citizens showing how life is today in Russia.
Don't get too hooked into thinking Russia are any sorts of "good guys," they seem suspect.
I follow a former editor of Russia Today, who left them, because of the STATE editorial over-site. He is a free thinking libertarian, who is against the NWO.
". . . This text will try, based on available data from numerous sources, to offer a possible explanation for the most important events of the Russian military operation in Ukraine and to point out its importance in the context of continental security in Europe.
To begin with, we will look at the number of soldiers that each side had at its disposal at the beginning of the conflict. Before any Russian soldiers crossed Ukrainian border, both sides grouped troops for an extended period of time. While Kiev was increasing the number of its units in the Donbas area, that is, in the operational zone of what Kiev authorities called the anti-terrorist operation, Moscow was deploying troops on the border with Ukraine. According to Russian sources, before the beginning of the conflict, Kiev deployed nearly 125.000 soldiers in eastern Ukraine, close to half of its regular military forces.[1]During the current fighting in Ukraine, plans for offensive against Donbas republics were confirmed by captured Ukrainian soldiers[2] with additional documentation related to these preparations being revealed by Russian troops in territories previously controlled by Kiev.[3]
All of the above can be dismissed as Russian propaganda, but it should be noted that according to Western sources, the military forces of the two Donbas republics, together, in 2021 numbered just over 40.000 soldiers.[4] In general, total number of troops for Donbas republics varies, according to different sources, between forty and fifty thousand soldiers. One of the generally accepted, though blunt, rules of war points out that in case of an attack on fortified positions, it is desirable that the attacking side has three times number of soldiers in comparison to defenders, the well known 3:1 ratio.[5][6]
As can be seen, before the Russian operation, the ratio of conflicting troops in Donbas roughly corresponded to this rule, so it can be concluded, with a dose of caution, that Kiev really intended to conduct in Donetsk and Lugansk something similar to the Croatian operation “Storm”.[7]
In terms of numbers, at the very beginning of the Russian offensive, Ukrainian army had 245.000 active-duty soldiers,[8] along with an additional 220.000 in reserve.[9] According to some sources, Kiev had as many as 900,000 soldiers at its disposal in the reserve.[10] The number of members in paramilitary formations ranged from fifty to one hundred thousand.[11] After the start of the conflict, between six and ten thousand foreign mercenaries arrived in Ukraine, though numbers varie wildely depending on the source.. . "
<snip>
Both sides have, on several occasions so far, presented results of their military actions, with information about their own and opponents’ losses. Apart from Russia and Ukraine, other indirect participants in this conflict, such as the United States and its NATO satellites, have published their own estimates, but, interestingly enough, only of Russian losses. According to Ukrainian sources, more than 20.000 Russian soldiers have been killed so far[18]. On the other hand, Moscow claims that the number of Ukrainian soldiers killed in the conflict so far surpasses 25.000. According to NATO sources, after a month of fighting, total Russian losses, killed together with the wounded, missing and captured, amounted to more than 40.000 men.[19] United States used similar figures in early April, as US authorities claimed at the time that number of killed Russian soldiers exceeded more than ten thousand.[20] During an interview for the American CNN, on April 14, Zelensky pointed out that number of killed Ukrainian soldiers is close to 3.000.[21]
Here Mariupol comes into play. In addition to its strategic and moral significance, Mariupol is important because it provides an opportunity to try and see more clearly the number of KIAs from the Ukrainian side. Namely, according to Russian sources, at the beginning of the siege, there was slightly more than 8.000[22] Ukrainian soldiers inside Mariupol. On the other hand, Kiev claims that Mariupol garrison did not number more than 3.500 people, in total.[23] So far we know two facts. During siege, between 1.200 and 1.500 Ukrainian soldiers surrendered to Russian troops.[24] We also know that there are up to two thousand Ukrainian fighters in the underground corridors of Azovstal, both ordinary soldiers and those from the Azov Battalion.[25] If we accept the Ukrainian version, we come to a paradoxical situation. Namely, during the heavy siege of Mariupol, characterized by daily battles, almost no soldier of the Ukrainian garrison died!
The math is quite simple and clear. If close to 1.500 Ukrainians surrendered, and close to 2.000 of them are still inside Azovstal, it can be concluded that the number of Ukrainian dead in Mariupol ranges from a few dozen to a maximum of a few hundred soldiers. From the initial garrison of 3.500 soldiers, almost all survived the full siege that began on March 2, that is, the siege that lasts a little more than sixty days at the time of writing. Statistically, this situation is impossible given that it tries to reconcile the fact that Russian troops occupied Mariupol completely, except for Azovstal itself, and assumption that very few Ukrainian soldiers were killed during this conquest, perhaps only a few.
You want links for this piece and this author? Which is more than government or Corporate CFR propaganda ever give us. . .
Here you go. I warn you though, since he write from Serbia, and our own government is now seen fit to restrict our own investigative abilities, some of these links can't be reached from the U.S. or certain European nations anymore.
This is one of the links I was particularly interested in, mostly because Peter Dale Scott would link to this site on the regular. . .
It is proof that the Russians are NOT losing, nor will they back down on this;
Posted last Saturday.
"Wow, damn.
I never thought I would see the day, when the US government started using censorship.
NOT CORPORATIONS, but the US government, censoring, a priori, journalism, right here in the U.S.
Mind blowing. I tried tonight to access this article, which, luckily someone mirrored at another site, at a Russian-American Think tank, which hosts authors, which our intel. agencies say, may have links to the FSB. Whatever. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. Americans have the right to read whatever they want though. . . .
Turns out, the Biden Administration decided that Strategic Culture, no longer has the right to operate in the US.
In an audacious attack on free speech, journalists and writers based in the United States have now been banned by the US federal authorities from publishing articles with Strategic Culture Foundation. We interview one of those authors affected by the ban, New York City-based journalist Daniel...
ronpaulinstitute.org
"In an audacious attack on free speech, journalists and writers based in the United States have now been banned by the US federal authorities from publishing articles with Strategic Culture Foundation. We interview one of those authors affected by the ban, New York City-based journalist Daniel Lazare who shares his thoughts on the profound implications for free speech, independent journalism and political dissent.
Lazare is one of several US-based writers who formerly published regular columns with Strategic Culture Foundation. Our online journal greatly appreciated their intelligent insights and analysis of US and international politics. Sadly, we will no longer be able to publish their columns because of the threat levied on them by the US federal authorities who accuse SCF of being an influence operation directed by the Kremlin. The allegations and threats are baseless and draconian. . . . "
<snip>
Interview
Question: You mentioned that you were approached by members of the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning article contributions as a columnist for Strategic Culture Foundation. Can you expand on those circumstances? When were you first approached, how recently, and did they specify SCF and the reasons for why the journal was being targeted?
Daniel Lazare: A couple of FBI agents knocked on my door on a blazing hot day in July 2020. My memory is fuzzy, but I distinctly remember them asking whether I could tell them about SCF and its alleged links with Russian intelligence. I replied that I wasn’t interested because I regard the entire avenue of inquiry as bogus and a product of the anti-Moscow hysteria that’s running rampant in Washington. So the agents left. Everything was polite and low-keyed, and the entire exchange took no more than four or five minutes.. . "
Thankfully, the article I wanted tonight, was mirrored, but. . . it is a shame I could not browse the site, it has been a while since I visited their site, it would have been nice to read what was up there. . .
Errors, Both Tactical, and of Strategic Consequence
Chess pieces are seen in front of displayed Russian and EU flags in this illustration taken January 25, 2022. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/Illustration – RC2B6S9TKRN2 Alastair Crooke The most likely ou…
hiram1555.com
The most likely outcome is Russia’s economy will not collapse (even were the EU to go the whole hog on energy and ‘everything’ else).
". . . Hence the misjudgement that Treasury war, coupled by extreme PSYOPS, could cut Putin ‘down to size’ is shared by the Neo-cons.
The Neo-cons are cock-a-hoop that financial war is failing. From their perspective it puts military action back on the table, with a new ‘front’ opening: An attack on the original key premise that a nuclear exchange with Russia must be avoided, and the kinetic element to the conflict, carefully circumscribed to avoid this possibility.
“It is true that acting firmly in 2008 or 2014 would have meant risking conflict,” Robert Kagan wrote in the latest issue of Foreign Affairs, lamenting the U.S. refusal to militarily confront Russia earlier:
“But Washington is risking conflict now; Russia’s ambitions have created an inherently dangerous situation. It is better for the United States to risk confrontation with belligerent powers when they are in the early stages of ambition and expansion, not after they have already consolidated substantial gains. Russia may possess a fearful nuclear arsenal, but the risk of Moscow using it is not higher now than it would have been in 2008 or 2014, if the West had intervened then. And it has always been extraordinarily small: Putin was never going to obtain his objectives by destroying himself and his country, along with much of the rest of the world.”
In short, don’t worry about going to war with Russia, Putin won’t use the bomb. Really? Why should you think that to be true?
These Neo-cons are lavishly funded by the war industry. They are never dropped from the networks. They rotate in and out of power, parked in places like the Council on Foreign Relations or Brookings or the AEI, before being called back into government. They have been as welcome in the Obama or Biden White House, as the Bush White House. The Cold War, for them, never ended, and the world remains binary – ‘us and them’, good and evil.
But the Pentagon does not buy it. They know what nuclear war implies. So the bottom line is that sanctions will hurt, but not collapse the Russian economy; the real war (and not the PSYOPS war of Russian military incompetence and failure) will be won by Russia (with any EU & U.S. military supplies of large equipment to Ukraine being vaporised as they cross the border); and the West will experience what it fears most: Humiliation in its attempt to reaffirm the liberal rules-based order.. . . "
"
so the main pootler´s RT. propaganda TV channel , pootler´s general said we need to capitulate in Ukraine ... as i wrote many times here, Moscow imperial is collapsing and there is only one solution : 'We need a way out': Former Russian colonel criticizes war efforts in Ukraine Former...
May 14, 2022 (3 day old video)
Russian girl Natasha shows a shopping mall and grocery store.
There are many current Youtube videos by regular Russian citizens showing how life is today in Russia.
edwardslavsquat.substack.com
www.mintpressnews.com
en.wikipedia.org
wikispooks.com
ronpaulinstitute.org
hiram1555.com
