Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think Putin's Russia has met something in Ukraine that in WW1 and WW2 helped made us a true free nation with some great friends and powerful allies...we shall never forget.
The "man of the year" has nationalized his media, removed all major parties in his government, declared martial law so he can solely make laws and is currently shutting down all churches in Ukraine.
They've made some interesting people person of the year over the years. If anything this magazine gives you insight into the minds of the people who run this western world, that they'd pick this man for person of the year. That's all I have to say on the issue. Chuckle.
I think this is more of a joke than anything, but hey, that's semites for you.
I am sorry for you that they did not pick Putin. Reality is man of the year is not always the best person but the most impactful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leo58
A good choice for person of the year. Remember, it is not based on who was the "best", but rather who had the greatest impact. I think Hitler was man of the year once.
What could have been a quick invasion to topple the Ukrainian government and install a puppet regime was turned into a protracted conflict that exposed the weakness of the vaunted Russian Army and exhibited the bravery and tenacity of the Ukrainian people. Zelensky deserves a lot of the credit for that.
Then how is it not Putin again after more than a decade? Everyone else is just reacting. Putin has had the biggest impact.
Or Victoria Nuland. She is the one who put all this into motion behind the shadows. Oh I guess she prefers to stay in the shadows.
This is a must-read for all the brain dead, Russia-hating Americans who have gotten all their info on this conflict from "unbiased" US media. Zelensky and Ukraine are not the innocent little angels our masters would have us believe. Read this article carefully, and also ponder this: When is the last time the USA made the right decision in either foreign policy, supporting the best candidate in foreign elections, or attacking a country/fighting a war that was actually in the best interests of America???
I have stated on here before, signatures dont matter when dealing with nation states. It does not have to be written on fancy parchment with gold plated fountain pens, and nice embroidery on the paper all around the edges. This is not Tyson Fury or Deontay finally signing to fight Anthony Joshua. This is not National Signing day for college football. This is not buying a house.
RU has repeatedly stated they want no more expansion of NATO. Because the globalist went ahead and let UKR or installed puppet who will attempt to get UKR into NATO, all bets are off. RU may as well install nuclear ICBM silos in Cuba like they tried in the 60s, and or just give Iran some nukes. It does not matter if they signed not to.
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be some kind of lighthearted jab to discredit the authenticity of what was stated in my previous post? You can find Zelensky's quote on the internet discussing how it's cool to venerate an odious collaborator of the Nazis who slaughtered hundreds of thousands of Poles and Jews and believed in racial supremacy. These politicians like to point fingers at groups like the American conservatives but they they were arming and supporting Banderist militias like the Azov battalion for years.
If you're talking about the war itself then yeah my recommendation to you would be research the initial approach taken by the Russians at the onset of this conflict which believed in the notion of a soft-handed approach as they were operating under the mindset of minimising damages to the civilian infrastructure and loss of life because they were hoping for a negotiated settlement which was abandoned once Boris Johnson made his infamous trip to Ukraine to tug at Zelensky's leash and pull him back in line. You had an overextended Russian contingent where too few men were available to guard and reinforce each kilometre now. Now after realising the scope and context of what it is they're engaged in there has been a partial mobilisation that has allowed for the calling up of reservists and deployment.
Now Russia is taking an approach more akin to the United States' when it engaged Iraq back in the 1990s albeit with the interest of minimising civilian casualties. If you think the Ukrainians are 'winning' then I would posit to you the fact that they have been exhausting the munitions reserves of their benefactors that is not easily replaced and is beginning to eat into the core armament supplies of these nations. Their troops are getting slaughtered right now within trenches in Bakhmut under continuous artillery shelling. Don't believe me? Look up the quotes of the Svoboda batallion holding Bakhmut, Petro Kuzyk. Examine the ratio of artillery shells being discharged each day and the reality shows a heavily disjointed advantage to the Russians; mind you this is with Russia fighting a de-facto NATO trained army that has embedded within itself thousands and thousands of foreign fighters who are directly engaged on the front lines.
The casualties estimated projected by the mainstream Western media is an inaccurate understatement in itself. A petition from the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers of Ukraine, that has since been taken down by the Ukrainian SBU, was requesting information on the whereabouts of 320,000 men who were part of the armed forces of Ukraine. 320,000! That figure is probably taking into account MIA, maybe WIA, but it's striking the implications there as it amounts to 1/3rd the total Ukrainian armed forces. Don't believe that figure? Then look towards the 200,000 estimated provided by former deputy of American European command, Stephen Twitty. Mind you that's from back in July, five months prior to right now, and before the September offensives in Kharkiv.
What the Russians have done is fortify their defensive positions and that's why you haven't really heard of any major breakthroughs. Kherson was a logistically difficult position to hold and with the Ukrainians threatening to flood the city by breaking the dams, they chose to reposition to the more defensible locations east of the Dnieper river. Ukraine is exhausting its trained manpower in forward strikes that have lately been getting repelled and their aforementioned benefactors don't have the luxury of being able to continuously arm them in a timely fashion. I referenced this in another topic concerning the inability of NATO to maintain a steady munitions supply to Ukraine as it burns through what it's already gotten at a rate that's exceeding supply.
Too many facts in this post. At this point, I’m not sure what I’m more shocked about.
That another person hasn’t fallen for all the obvious politician/MSM lies, or that people continue falling for politician/MSM lies.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
