111 Comments

  1. This is an excerpt from an article published in Foreign Affairs, a publication of the Council on Foreign Relations, the grandpappy of globalist public outreach:

    “Ukraine’s backers have proposed two pathways to victory. The first leads through Ukraine. With help from the West, the argument runs, Ukraine can defeat Russia on the battlefield, either depleting its forces through attrition or shrewdly outmaneuvering it. The second path runs through Moscow. With some combination of battlefield gains and economic pressure, the West can convince Russian President Vladimir Putin to end the war—or convince someone in his circle to forcibly replace him.

    ??? ???? ???????? ?? ??????? ???? ?? ????? ???????????. In Ukraine, the Russian army is likely strong enough to defend most of its gains. In Russia, the economy is autonomous enough and Putin’s grip tight enough that the president cannot be coerced into giving up those gains, either. The most likely outcome of the current strategy, then, is not a Ukrainian triumph but a long, bloody, and ultimately indecisive war. A drawn-out conflict would be costly not only in terms of the loss of human life and economic damage but also in terms of escalation—including the potential use of nuclear weapons.”

    Despite its publicity sponsor, it is exactly contrary what is being purported in the national media. Russia is winning, they are not being exhausted, and we’re throwing lots of good money after bad.

    Here is the link to the original article; I could not get the “free” access promised by Foreign Affairs, and this one, while showing more, is still incomplete. https://www.defensepriorities.org/opinion/editorials/2022-07-08-ukraines-implausible-theories-of-victory Nevertheless, I think I am citing the core thesis.

    Before my editing window expired, I did receive this link. Don’t know if it will work, but, https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/ukraine/2022-07-08/ukraines-implausible-theories-victory?check_logged_in=1&utm_medium=promo_email&utm_source=lo_flows&utm_campaign=registered_user_welcome&utm_term=email_1&utm_content=20220711

    1. Here are a couple more juicy citations:

      “Ukraine’s leaders and its backers speak as if victory is just around the corner. But that view increasingly appears to be a fantasy. Ukraine and the West should therefore reconsider their ambitions and shift from a strategy of winning the war toward a more realistic approach: finding a diplomatic compromise that ends the fighting.”

      “Putin is a veteran intelligence professional who presumably knows a lot about conspiracies, including how to defend against them. This alone makes a strategy of regime change suspect, even if there were some in Moscow who were willing to risk their lives to try it. For another thing, squeezing the Russian economy is unlikely to produce sufficient privation to create meaningful political pressure against Putin. ”

      “If that is the most likely eventual outcome, then it makes little sense for Western countries to funnel even more weapons and money into a war that results in more death and destruction with every passing week. Ukraine’s allies should continue to provide the resources that the country needs to defend itself from further Russian attacks, but they should not encourage it to expend resources on counteroffensives that will likely prove futile. Rather, the West should move toward the negotiating table now.”

      “It is easier to state these principles than it is to hammer them into the implementable provisions of an agreement. But that is precisely why negotiations should start sooner rather than later. The Ukrainian and Western theories of victory have been built on weak reasoning. At best, they are a costly avenue to a painful stalemate that leaves much Ukrainian territory in Russian hands. If this is the best that can be hoped for after additional months or years of fighting, then there is only one responsible thing to do: seek a diplomatic end to the war now.”

      It’s just as SOME of us have been advising before this all got started.

      1. Please read Putin’s speech of March 2018. Are you listening now? Game over. The special military operation was over when Russian started in the Ukraine in Feb 2022. The red lines were crossed and there is no going back. There is no bluffing going on. It is straight forward. Just listen.

    1. Looks to me like the financial coup and reset have been successful.

      The policies failed the official goals because the official goals are a cover story – not the goals.

      1. Thank you so much. I am so tired of the “failure” meme. It is working so well just as the toxins are working so well.

        As if some experts know not what they do. Granted some are divorced from reality. But, the FED? No, they know perfectly well what they are doing. This is not their first rodeo.

    1. I enjoyed it too, but am puzzled: Rasnick says that unbalanced/cancerous cells are unstable, and yet all of these “model cell lines” which are used in biological research (… and other industrial purposes) are examples of these sorts of cells. They are even called immortal cell lines. The most famous of these is perhaps HeLa cells (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HeLa), which were cervical cancer cells taken from Henrietta Lacks in 1951. How is it that HeLa cell lines are in anyway considered consistent enough to warrant research as though they are all identical?

      1. This is a quandary and above my pay grade.

        Perhaps, HeLa is now insilico or is also a fraud like so much of the molecular work being done.

    2. Interesting interview, I had not heard the term aneuploidity earlier, but I remembered a lot of the basic stuff from biology classes. That theory of what causes cancer makes more sense than the genes’ hypotheses, imho.
      Man – XY chromosomes, Woman – XX chromosomes…that’s the definition my generation learned at school…I have got this feeling I am getting too old to understand today’s arguments about “what is a woman”… 🙂
      Thanks for posting!

      1. There is so much good research that does not see the light of day. Unfortunately!

        I told my husband my definition of a “woman”. It’s the person that gets up at 2AM to nurse the baby she just gave birth to weeks ago. LOL! He replied…. but men can nurse sometimes. I laughed and said I never met one that can do that. He’s an entomologist. Funny guy.

        You are never too old!

        1. Thanks for sharing your definition, Sandra, that made me smile and you are so right!
          Grateful for all the souls out there who are talking about and sharing all the research and findings that don’t make the mainstream and actually for the technology that makes it possible for us to see and share it between us 🙂

          1. I should clarify that is only one definition of a woman. There are many as there are many definitions of a good man.

            Have a good evening.

Comments are closed.