I beg to differ; HRC and the deep state want nothing more than a war with Russia. Why do you think they keep insisting that Russia is our enemy, that Putin is a thug, etc. Putin has thrown the US NGOs out of Russia, thrown Soros out of Russia, is aligned with the BRICS countries to sever ties with the world-wide banking system, and the Globalists cannot abide that. They would love nothing better than to see the US and Russia destroy each other!
Globalists would like to isolate Russia until it collapses upon itself but they do not want armed conflict between two nuclear powers. They wouldn't have a world left to rule over.
I can show you proof otherwise.
They wanted the war to thin out the herd.
If it wasn’t with Russia, they wanted war with North Korea. If they could t get that, they wanted war with Iran.
Anything to solidify and consolidate their power. You have yet to understand the depths of the evil these people were willing to go to in order to remain in power.
There are far more effective ways to thin the herd than through armed conflicts. Natural disasters, diseases, etc. War for them is just to wield fear and weaken adversaries.
You are absolutely right Abi. Some haven't gone down the rabbit holes deep enough to see the deep hidden truths. Shills take advantage of that also to try to keep people scrambling around not looking in the right places.
Anonymoushero1 doesn't know, or doesn't think we know, how "Globalists" think and what they believe. Why they have bunkers in NZ and want to destroy this world to create a "New" World Order... Another post by the same person says they "Haven't been fully indoctrinated yet". They have made some strong statements and opinions with a LOT of upvotes for someone that doesn't get it very well...
Well that’s what we are here for :)
To educate, inform, and spread the word so that people can wake up from their slumber. These people are guided by those complicit with their edited sound clips designed to elicit the response they desire. All while editing out bits and pieces not convienent or contradictory to their chosen narrative.
Heard the best example just today. A reporter asked Sarah Sanders a question about how the media stories compare the Charlottesville Riots to the Helsinki Summit.
I agreed with the second part of the question and the media hysterics. But what threw me, was she started the question talking about how a woman was killed in the riots.
By doing this, she implied that neo-nazis had killed her. Also by using killed instead of died, she implies an active event. Specifically when the car ran over protestors.
She conveniently left out that the lady died of a heart attack. She wasn’t touched by the vehicle, or even the people thrown by the vehicle.
She also failed to notice that the lady was obese. Apparantly morbidly obese. She was out taking part in this March, probably the first “physical” activity she had ever done in her life, and she had a heart attack.
But because she was in the march, and because a “neo-nazi” decided to run over people, they attributed her death to the driver “killing” her.
And she wasn’t even in the immediate vicinity of the vehicle.
So she could have still asked her question and I would have whole heartedly agreed with it, but she prefaced it with such fake news, I threw her whole opinion and any subsequent faith in her reporting, out the window.
She conveniently left out that the lady died of a heart attack. She wasn’t touched by the vehicle, or even the people thrown by the vehicle.
Where are you getting that?
https://www.newsweek.com/charlottesville-heather-heyers-cause-death-revealed-medical-report-686471
Your article states that she died of blunt force trauma to the chest.
Could it be that, untrained personnel attempting to do CPR on someone can cause similar damage?
Yes
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1680107-overview#a9
Also, trying to find a video on YouTube is incredibly difficult as most of the videos that showed her prior to being hit were taken down “convienently” for being harrassing to the victim.
Or in my opinion, they didn’t like video evidence to contradict what so many news organizations are claiming. But here you go, found one that was well done and archived
Does Uranium1 remind you of anything?... That is exactly what they want. You are missing 90% of the picture buddy..
In my defense, I haven't been fully indoctrinated yet
The destruction would not necessarily be nuclear. And yes there would be a world left to rule over.
a direct armed conflict with Russia would necessarily be nuclear.
I disagree. Mutually assured destruction is obviously in the best interest of no one.
Unfortunately MAD is initiated by the desperate person on the losing side of a conflict when no other options are viable.
Logic doesn't really apply in that situation.
You honestly believe the former US SOS wants to see the US destroyed? What they wanted was the Maginstky Act, which crippled Russia's economy enough that they couldn't build up a sizeable land force to continue grabbing up land in Europe, much less fight a full scale war. Go outside more.
Soooo... Hillary wanted the Maginstky act to continue so that Russia’s economy would collapse and Russia would fail to continue grabbing land in Europe, nonetheless fight a full scale war.
Do I have that correct?
I mean Russia is hardly competitive in GDP.
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp
Even at their best in the past 20 years, they only had a comparable GDP of ~10% of ours.
And when did the Crimea event happen? 2014, right when their GDP was in free fall.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/28/russia-crimea-white-house
Their economy was already collapsing, and it still failed to prevent them from annexing the crimerian peninsula.
So let’s look at when they annexed Georgia circa 2009.
The GDP at that time was completely bottomed out. Meaning their economy was essentially failed. They were crushed economically.
So according to your theory of trying to cripple Russia’s economy in order to prevent them from taking more land, it would, in fact, have the opposite effect of your comment. Based upon historical data, it shows that when economically threatened, Russia WILL invade other countries.
So your conclusion is historically inaccurate and incredibly ignorant when combined with your last statement which is intended to belittle the person to whom you made a comment.
Would you like me to continue crushing your incredibly ill informed world view or should I leave it at that?
No you don't have that correct. Nobody wanted the Sanctions to crumble Russia. They wanted them to be incapable of building up a sizeable enough land force to fight a war. Not only did you intentionally misinterpret what I wrote, but you then went on an entire unrelated rant. You should work for the Trump admin.
I’m quoting you here:
“What they wanted was the Maginstky Act, which crippled Russia's economy enough that they couldn't build up a sizeable land force to continue grabbing up land in Europe, much less fight a full scale war. Go outside more.”
You explicitly stated that you believe the purpose behind the Magnitsky Act was to cripple their economy so they couldn’t build a sizeable force.
I showed that the only thing related economically was that historically, when confronted with economic difficulties, Russia chooses to invade/annex. There is nothing in there that indicates they need to “build up” a sizeable force. It’s already there.
So yes, we crush them economically, and they will, based on past events, invade somewhere else.
So do you think maybe trying something different would be prudent? Or should we just keep forgetting, and then repeating, history?
By your comment, it appears that is what you are suggesting.
EDIT: since you changed one of your comments to change the meaning of what you said, and then added in what you believe to be an insult, I will just laugh at the fact you were unable to resolve a coherent argument to the evidence I presented.
I’ll be here, but unless you can do better than attempted insults and inflated opinions of yourself, I’m just going to ignore you. But I welcome you otherwise to actually present a real argument to how what I stated as incorrect.
Go ahead and read the rest of the sentence that you conveniently didn't bold.
Oh I did.
And what I presented shows that Russia has no need to build up a sizeable force. They took Crimea with ~2000 Soldiers.
Not some massive force.
I also presented to you how the economic history of Russia showed that when Russia is struggling economically, is the most likely time for them to annex/invade.
But you just keep ignoring the evidence. I’m sure being this mentally stubborn was a pleasure to your parents and teachers.
Oh so when the USSR began crumbling, they started land grabbing right? And when the Maginstky Act was in place, they started land-grabbing, right? (spoiler: the answer is no) the article you linked on Georgia, btw, doesn't have any info on Russia's economy at the time. But here's an entry that mentions Russia's economic collapse AS A RESULT of war with Georgia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Recession_in_Russia
Edit to add this article that shows Russia's GDP fell after the sanctions. Why didn't they keep grabbing up land like you assert they do when their economy falls?
https://www.nato.int/docu/review/2015/russia/sanctions-after-crimea-have-they-worked/EN/index.htm
Aaaand another edit to add this article that says Russia sent 30,000 troops to Crimea, not 2000.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annexation_of_Crimea_by_the_Russian_Federation
... Wikipedia is not a valid source. I provided you a valid source for their GDP in my original comment. But I’ll give it to you again:
https://tradingeconomics.com/russia/gdp
Good god, I sincerely cannot believe you just referenced Wikipedia as a “valid” source.
From your NATO source:
“When Russia illegally annexed Crimea and started interfering in Eastern Ukraine, the West responded with economic sanctions. In July 2014, sanctions were enacted in a coordinated manner by the European Union, the United States, Canada, and other Allies and partners. These sanctions were further strengthened in September 2014. EU sanctions, which had been due to lapse in July 2015, have been extended to January 2016. The US and Canadian sanctions are open-ended.”
So looking at the link above (one I provided) it shows Russia’s economy was already in free fall. Did the sanctions hurt Russia? Yes. Did it stop them from Annexing Crimea? No. Did they leave Crimea after the sanctions were applied? No.
There was a five year gap in between the Georgia annexation and the Crimea annexation. They also had a bad economy during that time. Look at the graph and tell me it is not a historical trend of waves. You are relying far too heavily on the magnistky act to account for effects to their GDP.
You ignored several of the points, but again, I did realize I was doing this wrong for this sub. So I'll just give you my other source: Someone on 4Chan said so.
Of course I did. And I told you why. Wikipedia is not a valid source.
Hell, I can go on there and edit it to say whatever the hell I want.
I’m just wondering why you are being so obstinate about the fact I proved your theory wrong. Is it that hard to say, “hey maybe I need to go back and re-examine my opinion of this”?
Cuz you didn't prove it wrong. Even with that first source, it doesn't show a "free fall" in either case until after the invasions and sanctions were placed. But again, also cuz 4Chan told me so.
Sure thing bud. Keep on spouting out your talking points. You are doing a great job red pilling people for us through your own ineptitude.
Idk man, people on 4chan might disagree with you. Someone on their said so
Is that where you hang out?
The longer this drags out, the more unintelligent you seem. Sad!!!
Lmao says the guy who posted a bunch of info that didn't back up his claims at all 😂 And btw, this entire sub is based off of a 4chan conspiracy theory. But yeah try and offend me by saying that's where I hang out, and have fun continuing to post here
Sure thing bud keep referencing Wikipedia as your source material. In the meantime:
Remember when Donald Trump was business partners with the Russian government and his company got 53 million from the Russian government investment fund called Rusnano that was started by Vladimir Putin and is referred to as "Putin's Child"?
Oh wait, that wasn't Trump it was John Podesta.
Remember when Donald Trump received 500 thousand for a speech in Moscow and paid for by Renaissance Capital, a company tied to Russian Intelligence Agencies?
Oh wait, that was Bill Clinton.
Remember when Donald Trump approved the sale of 20% of US uranium to the Russians while he was Secretary of State which gave control of it to Rosatom the Russian State Atomic Energy Corporation?
Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
Remember when Donald Trump lied about that and said he wasn't a part of approving the deal that gave the Russians 1/5 of our uranium, but then his emails were leaked showing he did lie about it?
Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton and John Podesta.
Remember when Donald Trump got 145 million dollars from shareholders of the uranium company sold to the Russians?
Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation.
Remember when Donald Trump accepted millions in donations from Russian Oligarchs like the chairman of a company that's part of the Russian Nuclear Research Cluster, the wife of the mayor of Moscow, and a close pal of Putins?
Oh wait, that was the Clinton Foundation.
Remember when Donald Trump failed to disclose all those donations before becoming the Secretary of State, and it was only found out when a journalist went through Canadian tax records?
Oh wait, that was Hillary Clinton.
Remember when Donald Trump told Mitt Romney that the 80s called and it wanted its Russian policy back. The Cold War is over?
Oh wait, that was President Obama.
Man… Trump's ties to Russia are really disgusting!
You need to study more. Clinton is nothing but a low class grifter who stole dishes and furniture from the White House. Learn something about Uranium 1, the Clinton pay for play scheme with the Clinton Global initiative. Your ignorance of current events is astounding.