Zelenskyy 60 Minutes interview: DEBUNKED

Donate: www.forerunner...
Website: www.forerunner...
Books: www.lulu.com/s...
DEBUNKED:
www.cbsnews.co...
1. The domino theory. Putin plans to conquer the whole of Europe.
2. Putin is not the enemy. The enemy is the whole of the Russian people who support Putin.
3. Russia bombs civilians and commits war crimes. Ukraine does not. Ukraine does not hit civilian targets in Russia with drones. If they do, they have a right to.
4. If only the West had given Ukraine more weapons they would have defeated Russia. Now the whole world has to unite to defeat Russia to avoid (or cause?) WWIII.
5. The war (and cocaine addiction?) has taken a toll on Zelensky.
6. Russia (1.3 million troops) and Ukraine (500,000) have no professional army left.
7. Putin will go on threatening nuclear war. (He's never done so in any speech or statement.)
8. The reporter asks about Ukraine negotiating in exchange for land. (Zelensky had a law passed forbidding negotiations with Putin.)
The most outrageous statement was to say that neither Russia nor Ukraine have any professional troops left. This is just beyond irresponsible reporting.
Up until last September, the majority of troops fighting against Ukraine were Lugansk and Donetsk volunteer militias, the Chechen mercenaries and Wagner.
Few regular Russian army troops out of the total 830,000 mobilized have seen action. Most of the so-called conscripts are not draftees, but are reserves that have had past military training or experience. There ARE also a large number of volunteers, but they are not the majority.
The Russians are currently playing a waiting game while they build up more weapons and more troops.
Even Western sources have admitted that Russia has more weapons than they had at the start of the war, and more mobilized troops.
They also recently surpassed Germany and GDP/PPP to become the first largest economy in Europe, and the fifth largest in the world.
It's advantageous to be on the defensive because the larger army on the defensive loses about 1/3 to death and casualties as the attacking army.
Part of the waiting game is the economic war in that Germany has deindustrialized. The sanctions on Russia make energy for their factories too expensive.
I read a speech by Blinken claiming that Russia was seeking to destroy the Europe's economy by refusing to sell gas and oil to Germany. On the contrary, Russia offers cheap energy to Germany But the US forces Germany to sanction imports.
www.state.gov/...
It amazes me that they're able to say such things.
www.statista.c...
The sad fact is that the Western powers were never planning on engaging Russia with NATO directly. They planned to provoke a war in order to sanction Russia into economic collapse. Since that has backfired big time and they do not have an off-ramp or a reverse gear.
But there are signs this alliance against Russia is cracking.
/////////////////////
“Ukraine is behaving like a drowning person clinging to anything available,” President Andrzej Duda told Polish journalists in New York on Tuesday. “A drowning person is extremely dangerous, capable of pulling you down to the depths . . . simply drown the rescuer.”
www.ft.com/con...
//////////////////
Rose Weiner:
Hi Jay,
Well I think you need to ask who is on God's side and I think it is the Russians.
The Ukrainians are serviced and fighting for the cabal - doomed for failure and the American government needs to repent for sending them money - They are sending the Ukrainians to fight a war they can't win and this is immoral - but then the US marxists (their name does not deserve to be capitalized) supporting this war are also for transgender and child trafficking - and that is not the majority of the Americans.
So this whole demonic regime here and there and in Davos are on their way out, along with their Federal Reserve note and IRS - the principalities behind them are being cast out of the heavenlies - and they are trying to grab hold of anything they can to keep from falling. But it is too late for them, "it is not in the cards", they have been weighed in the balance and been found wanting, the die has been cast and there is no return. I keep seeing a screeching cat falling off a table, grabbing to hold on to the tablecloth and dragging everything off the table as it falls - only this is a bottomless pit they are being cast into - they will never recover.
"Truth crushed to the earth will rise again, the eternal years of God are hers, but evil when it is wounded withers and dies among its worshipers" -- having no power of Resurrection.
Blessing,
Rose

[@jcr4runner]

If you find the idea that Zelenskyy stands with Nazis literally and that the West applauds Nazis because they fought Russia, you need to see this. kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4XIg5mIhrqEfqMsi=FiapFV_rvCazbLJ9

[@dinorino2]

Hi jcr4runner! I take issue with your claim at 5:21 . You say that by funnelling in money and weapons we are "prolonging the suffering on both sides". This is an invalid argument in the case of the war in Ukraine, because if we stop helping Ukraine then it will be immediatly conquered by Russia. so what you're actually suggesting is surrendering... This is an old tactic that aggressors use (shifting the blame onto the defender). You want the attacked party to stop fighting in order to stop the bloodshed, while in fact you should blame the aggressor who carries the full responsibility for what is happening.

[@jcr4runner]

There was a peace agreement for Donbass offered by Russia in December of 2021 and then again in March of 2022. Neither one of these agreements required Ukraine to give up any land. The US could foster a peace agreement right now by simply agreeing that Ukraine will never join NATO and freezing the line of contact as it is right now. Ukraine would not have to recognize these regions as part of Russia, but they also could not militarize the land in the immediate area. There would obviously have to be a security agreement and Russia has said repeatedly that they want a security agreement with Europe protecting Ukraine, they just don't want NATO membership and an Article 5 risk of a direct war with NATO. Since Russia is the most powerful nuclear superpower in the world, it does not help the west or Russia to forego a very strong security agreement that would clearly delineate what the red lines are here. My opinion is that the West took advantage of a period of weakness when Russia had a faltering economy in the 1990s, to push the red lines. But since that time Russia has been asking for a new security agreement infrastructure with Europe and the US, and also a nuclear arms treaty. You're under the impression that Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine and then take parts of Europe. There's absolutely no evidence for that, but that's what you've been led to believe. The entire concern for Russia is ethnic Russians and Russian speaking people inside of Ukraine and the security concerns of Russia not having nuclear weapons on its border pointed at them.

[@jcr4runner]

I don't also hold of your view that Ukraine is the attacked party. That is the Western narrative. The reality is that the Kyiv Euromaidan government has been attacking citizens within Ukraine who are ethnic Russian separatists for 9 years since 2014. Russia finally recognized them as independent republics in 2022. The two republics had requested that for eight years, but Russia refused and instead sought to have the two sides negotiate with Kyiv, with France and Germany as observers. Russia then began fighting a legal war in February 2022 under the UN charter article 51, which allows for collective self defense.

[@dinorino2]

​@@jcr4runner with all due respect, your position is very one sided. For example you claim that "there was peace agreement for Donbass offered by Russia", while in fact in March 3rd Putin was simply stating what he wants: Ukraine's recognition of Crimea as a Russian land, and independence for Luhansk and Donetsk. That's not exactly "peace agreement", it's more like an ultimatum ("this is what I want and I'm gonna kill Ukrainians until you agree..."). What you say next ("The US could foster a peace agreement...") is just repeating the same fallacy from your first comment, as if the attacked party (or countries that assist the attacked country, for that matter) is responsible for the bloodshed, and as if the aggressor is entitled to get what he wants. I mean, why shouldn't Ukraine join NATO, and why shouldn't it militarize whatever region in its territory? Regarding the west and Russia's neighbors, well, it's exactly the other way around: After the fall of the USSR - East-European countries (e.g. Poland, Czechia, etc..) were more than happy to turn west... they wanted to get closer to the EU and NATO. Why shouldn't the EU and Nato accept countries that EAGERLY ask to join? Now I'm not "under the impression" that Russia wants to occupy all of Ukraine... I KNOW that this is what Putin wanted to do. I know that because Putin tried (and failed) to reach Kiev, hence he was planning a regime change, and as we all know - a regime change is the same as occupying the entire country. You are also wrong about "The entire concern for Russia". First of all it's not "the concern for Russia" but "the concern for Putin", secondly: the REAL concern of Russia (Putin) is in fact an internal concern: he simply doesn't want Russians to realize that life in Russia SUCKS in comparison to life in countries which are closer to the west. That's his entire concern and all the rest is bullshit.

[@dinorino2]

​@@jcr4runner Oh, and another thing: What you say at 8:30 about the "domino theory" (you say is was debunked) is truly hilarious. I mean, seriously man.. The Soviet Union was basically Russia invading and conquering 20 countries or so. In other words: it was EXACTLY what you claim is impossible / debunked...

[@dinorino2]

@@jcr4runner Also: what you say at 12:05 is simply being dishonest. You're repeating Russian propaganda that is basically aimed at retards. only morons are capable of believing that Russia "only fires at military targets that are in civilian areas", let alone blaming Ukraine for that, as you do. Man, that's pathetic. If that's not 'blaming the victim' then I don't know what is. The Russian record of violating human rights and targeting civilians is as bad as UAS's. I can't believe that you actually repeat the Russian's flimsy excuse.

[@michaelholloway8]

Ukraine doesn't have to win. They just need to not lose. Oh! And that you're religiousness sullies your analysis. Being caught by one big lie makes you ripe for the next.

[@jcr4runner]

All human conflicts have a spiritual nature to them as well as the psychological and physical nature. The inability to see that indicates an unwillingness to deal with the issue of righteousness and judgment in an eternal sense. No, you are wrong. One side has to win. Winners of wars almost always get stronger. Sides that lose or "don't win" (as you say) get weaker. Just look at the history of the US since 1945. We have become weaker and weaker the more wars we have lost since Vietnam in 1974. The US has lost our proxy war with Russia in Syria. We have now lost the proxy war in Ukraine too. Better to get out of these conflicts before it keeps getting worse for us. It's true that most wars are ended by settlement and not with complete defeat of one country by another. But the country with the upper hand forces the settlement and they dictate most of the terms. There probably will not be an unconditional surrender of Ukraine, but they will lose and they will be forced to the table. There will be negotiations and there will be things that both sides find distasteful. But Russia is the clear winner and so is BRICS and the global South. The Western Alliance is the loser.

[@michaelholloway8]

@@jcr4runner Bunk and nonsense. Sounds like you think you have a soul. More bunk and nonsense