#russian stooge

[liberalsarecool]

Probably the CIA.

Typical MAGA 'alpha'.

Imagine making being a performative cospatriot your entire personality and then being exposed as a Russian stooge. 😂😂😂

[muddypolitics]

(via Trump Media Company Taking Money From Russian Cutouts? No, No, That Can't Be Right! - Wonkette)

...The Guardian reporter broke the news this morning that Trump Media & Technology Group, the parent company of his janky knockoff Twitter platform Truth Social, is under SEC investigation for an $8 million cash infusion from a Kremlin-linked entity that appears "to be controlled in part by the relation of an ally of Russian president Vladimir Putin."

[tomorrowusa]

The Sukhoi Su-57 is Russia's most advanced stealth fighter jet. Only about two dozen are operational. It is known that Russia has used these jets to launch Kalibr missiles into Ukraine.

So Ukraine became the first country ever to destroy a Su-57 – and there's reason to believe that it may have taken out TWO of them.

It’s increasingly clear a Ukrainian drone badly damaged, and possibly destroyed, a Russian air force Sukhoi Su-57 stealth fighter in a Saturday raid on Russia's Akhtubinsk State Flight Test Center in southern Russia 365 miles from the Russia-Ukraine border. And it’s possible a second Su-57—out of around two dozen Su-57s the Russian air force has acquired since the type’s first flight in 2010—was also damaged in the raid. “There is preliminary information that there could be two Su-57 aircraft affected,” Andriy Yusov, a spokesman for the Ukrainian intelligence agency, said in a Sunday interview.

The Su-57 is roughly the equivalent of the US F-22.

As recently as 2019, there were at least six twin-engine, supersonic Su-57s at Akhtubinsk. Ground crews routinely parked the radar-evading jets out in the open—eliciting a bitter protest from the Fighterbomber Telegram channel, a popular forum for Russian airmen and their boosters. Fighterbomber asked why, 28 months into Russia’s wider war on Ukraine, the air force hasn’t built hardened shelters for its most precious aircraft—including the Su-57 that Fighterbomber itself confirmed suffered shrapnel damage during the Saturday drone raid.

You read that correctly. These very expensive and relatively rare planes were parked outside in the open during wartime when Ukrainian drones have already struck more than twice the distance into Russia of the Akhtubinsk air base. The Russian military continues to prove that it simply is not very bright.

Meanwhile, Ukraine gets increasingly resourceful and innovative.

But the Ukrainians strike Russian airfields more effectively than the Russians strike Ukrainian airfields—thanks in large part to Ukraine’s growing inventory of long-range strike drones and the relative sluggishness of Russian decision-making. Ukrainian air force commanders frequently, sometimes more than once a day, scatter their jets across a vast network of small airfields and even highway airstrips—all in a preemptive effort to complicate Russian raids on parked planes. Russian air force commanders do no such thing. When Russian jets change bases, it’s usually the result of a long-planned move—often in response to particular bases repeatedly coming under attack by Ukrainian rockets or drones.

Here are before and after satellite photos of one of the wrecked Russian Su-57s.

^^^ Date format is DD/MM/YYYY. The Ukrainian captions simply identify the aircraft and point out burn marks and debris from the explosion. You don't have to annihilate an expensive aircraft to make it unusable.

Russian disinformation, as parroted by both extreme right and extreme left in Europe, often goes like this...

"OMG, there's no way Ukraine can ever defeat Russia with its unlimited resources."

We know that those "unlimited" resources are unable to provide almost a quarter of Russia's rural population with toilets. 🚽

Those Putin stooges want you to ignore how Russia has suffered frequent military humiliations, demonstrated bizarre military incompetence, and has lost hundreds of thousands of troops in the past 28 months. Russia, or rather its predecessor the USSR, lost the 1979-1989 Afghan invasion. Russian incompetence certainly did not vanish 35 years ago when that war ended.

[kyliaquilor]

You don’t tend to join an alliance with a power halfway around the world...unless you think your neighbor is going to invade you.

[psychotrenny]

Imperial Core Liberals love "forgetting" that a diversity of political opinions exist in other countries the second they see someone parroting an Imperialist talking point who happens to be from whatever country they're currently obsessed with intervening in. Like they'll take a single tweet from Juana B. Comprador saying "Thank you America for overthrowing that tyrant and bringing my people Freedom and Hamburger" as proof that Imperialist interference is good and anyone who disagrees is just a cruel, out of touch Westoid that's too arrogant to care about authentic lived experiences. And like you don't even need to think in Marxist terms of like class interest and national contradictions etc. to realise how stupid this; simple common sense should tell you "People in the Third World are not a hive mind; finding one individual who says a thing does not mean everyone in their nation agrees".

But that very simple and obvious fact is inconvenient to the self image of a "progressive" Imperialist, and so they simply don't think about it. Even when they're forced to admit that differences of opinion exist, they find some rhetorical framing to present such dissent as automatically illegitimate. Like clearly anyone from X country who disagrees with them is just a Russian agent or brainwashed stooge of the regime, not a free thinker that truly speaks for the people. It's a form of argument that relies on the patterns of dehumanisation that people in the Imperial Periphery are subjected to; as anonymised masses that lack any meaningful individuality, an "authentic" speaker for one is an authentic speaker for all. Their value in any conversation starts and ends as rhetorical constructs to affirm what you already believed; the complex thoughts and feelings of countless living humans do nothing but get in the way

[simply-ivanka]

Democrats, Blame Yourselves

Voters on Tuesday repudiated the results of progressive policies.

By The Editorial Board Wall Street Journal

If Democrats want some sage counsel on how to recover from their electoral drubbing on Tuesday, we suggest they recall that classic relationship breakup line from Seinfeld’s George Costanza: “It’s not you; it’s me.”

The temptation after a defeat this humiliating is to hunt for scapegoats—fading Joe Biden, untutored Kamala Harris, Russian disinformation, benighted and racist voters. They’d be wiser to look in the mirror.

The defeat was less a resounding endorsement of Mr. Trump than a repudiation of progressive governance. America rejected the consequences of left-wing policies. Democrats lost ground from 2020 across many demographic groups, according to the exit polls. Even women moved percentage points closer to Mr. Trump. How could Democrats possibly lose like this to a man they think is Hitler? Allow us to offer a list for liberal reflection:

• The failure of Bidenomics. Democrats once understood that private business drives growth and higher incomes. Sometime in the 21st century, they came to believe that government spending creates wealth—via the “Keynesian multiplier” and other nostrums.

Thus they passed, on a party-line vote, a $1.9 trillion pandemic-relief bill that wasn’t really needed, fueling the highest inflation in decades. This robbed millions of workers of real wage gains, which haunted Democrats on Tuesday as two-thirds of voters said they were unhappy with the state of the economy.

• Cultural imperialism. Democrats took their 2020 victory as an invitation to turn identity politics into woke policy. They stood with transgender activists instead of parents who don’t want boys to play girls sports or elementary teachers to pass out pronoun pins. Republicans hammered Democrats with ads that attacked Democratic votes against tying federal funds to transgender school policies.

Democrats also began using the term “Latinx,” which sounds to many Spanish-speakers like illiterate cultural imperialism from elites. Could that and other woke policies have played a role in Mr. Trump winning 46% of the Hispanic vote and 55% of Latino men, according to the exit polls?

• Regulatory coercion. In pursuit of their climate obsessions, Democrats pushed coercive mandates, including an EPA rule effectively saying that by 2032 only 30% of new car sales can be gas-powered models. The EV mandate caused layoffs among auto workers in Michigan that Mr. Trump attacked in TV ads and on the stump.

• Lawfare. Democrats used Mr. Trump’s divisiveness to escalate against him at every turn. After calling him a Russian stooge and impeaching him twice, Mr. Biden labeled him a “fascist” and Democrats tried to bar him from the ballot.

They criminally indicted Mr. Trump—four times—and targeted his family business with a civil suit. They convicted him in New York, under an elected Democratic prosecutor who stretched the law to turn misdemeanors into felonies, in a case that wouldn’t have been brought against another businessman.

The strategy turned Mr. Trump into a martyr to GOP voters and cemented his support in the Republican primaries.

• Breaking democratic norms. Democrats decided to use taxes from plumbers and welders to forgive college loans for lawyers and grad students in grievance studies. When the Supreme Court struck Mr. Biden’s effort down as an abuse of power, he tried again and taunted the Court to stop him.

Democrats tried to override the Senate filibuster to seize control of the nation’s voting laws and impose practices such as ballot harvesting, as Mr. Biden raged that his opponents were creating “Jim Crow 2.0.”

They tried to override the filibuster to pass a national abortion law that would go beyond Roe v. Wade. They promised to override the filibuster in 2025 to bulldoze the High Court. They ran Joe Manchin and Kyrsten Sinema out of the party for disagreeing.

All of this and other progressive preoccupations caused Democrats to lose sight of the larger public interest. They came to believe, backed by the mainstream press, that voters would tolerate it all because Mr. Trump was simply unacceptable.

This opened the door for Mr. Trump to remind voters that they were better off under his policies four years earlier. Mr. Trump won more than 72 million ballots. He improved his standing with minority voters. He gained votes even in Democratic states.

Voters were telling Democrats on Tuesday that the party has wandered into ideological fever swamps where most Americans don’t want to go. Winning those voters again will require more than firing back up the anti-Trump “resistance.”

[darkmaga-returns]

In the early hours of Wednesday morning, legacy news networks were already sliding toward 2016 levels of melting down about the increasingly definite prospect of a presidential victory by Donald J. Trump. For them, Harris’ stinging defeat is personal — because it’s just as much a defeat for them as it is for her.

The corporate media industrial complex has spent Donald Trump’s entire political career trying to destroy him. Hand-in-hand with triple-letter government agencies and Democrats, they ran a hoax painting Trump as a Russian stooge based on ridiculous rumors commissioned by his opponent’s campaign in 2016. They continued to spread the lie for the duration of his presidency, awarding each other Pulitzers for it. And they’ve only ramped up their efforts since then.

The problem they’re reckoning with tonight is this: those efforts didn’t work. They’re no longer able to control Americans by controlling their information intake, because their credibility is farther deep-sixed than the Clinton family’s enemies list.

A TV executive anonymously fretted last week that “If half the country has decided that Trump is qualified to be president, that means they’re not reading any of this media, and we’ve lost this audience completely. A Trump victory means mainstream media is dead in its current form.”

Even before the election results were in, that was true of the corporate press. Jeff Bezos knew it when he reportedly ordered The Washington Post to withhold an endorsement of Harris. But now, they can’t avoid it.

Since the last presidential election, the media have screeched incessantly about Trump “inciting an insurrection” at the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. They made documentaries comparing Trump to the Ku Klux Klan. They portrayed Trump as the ringleader of a terrorist attack and not as a president who gave a speech and urged his supporters to protest peacefully.

Tuesday night’s results are a resounding indication that Americans didn’t buy it.

[fabiansociety]

watching russia target black precincts for bomb threats is a good reminder that white supremacy is an international community and that fascism crosses the borders they swear have to be impenetrable

also that trump is a russian stooge, but we knew that

[liberalsarecool]

Democrats are loyal to Democracy/America.

Republicans betray all for a Russian stooge.

[creature-wizard]

For anyone who isn't aware, studying culty and scammy type stuff is a thing I do. In fact, my Tumblr here is mostly about that kind of thing.

If there is one thing that I have learned, it's that when someone tells you that everyone else is corrupted and evil, and then presents themselves and whatever they have going on as the alternative that will save you, they are full of shit. At the very best, they genuinely just don't understand the world all that well, and don't realize just how much they don't know. But more often - far more often - they're actually running some sort of scam or cult, and they're looking for someone new to take advantage of.

This is why third party presidential candidates should not be trusted so easily, no matter how progressive they're painting themselves up as. Scammers and cult leaders target the marginalized all the time because they know that these are the most vulnerable people, and therefore the easiest to pull into whatever it is they have going on.

Meanwhile, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is a conspiracy theorist, and there's a lot that points to Jill Stein being a Russian stooge. I don't know each and every third party presidential candidate out there so I can't tell you what's suspicious or worrying about the rest, but I can say - do not trust people just because they present themselves as the third option and tell you what you want to hear. In fact, that's often all the more reason to be wary, especially if they're often emphasizing how nobody else cares about you or can help you, and makes themself seem like your only choice.

[scrapironflotilla]

the Russians carried fixed bayonets on the march, and this proved a source of danger to mounted men in their neighbourhood, some of whom were blinded by unexpected movements of infantrymen alongside.

christ this is some three stooges shit

[warsofasoiaf]

who would be a better pick for director of national intelligence? as far as im aware Tulsi doesnt have experience in positions of that level, im not sure what to think about her views on Russia given she takes nuclear war seriously but also she was slandered by Shillary

Frankly speaking, any number of intelligence professionals would be more qualified than Tulsi Gabbard. She has no experience in the intelligence field, neither her assignments nor her Senate career saw her exposed to anything, so her lack of experience should be an automatic disqualifier, even if her trafficking in Russian and Syrian conspiracies didn't already demonstrate that she is manifestly unfit for the position. But let's embark on a thought exercise, just so I can illustrate my point a bit more clearly.

I hate steelmanning, but let's steelman her actions. Let's say that she's not a Russian stooge or a pet, and that her statements come from a place of deep personal conviction against US foreign entanglements. Let's assume she is not being coerced or compensated to repeat Russian propaganda, and say that she's a true believer. Her statements on the Russo-Ukrainian War would already render her unfit. As I've mentioned before, the idea of "NATO encroachment" on Russia doesn't suit the facts of what actually occurred in Ukraine. Russia was the primary breacher of the Minsk Accords (over 80% of ceasefire breaches were performed by Russian or pro-Russian separatist movements), and Ukraine didn't pivot toward NATO membership until after the seizure of Crimea (well-documented by reliable polling). These are not opinions, but facts. Just as how she made statements that Bashar al-Assad did not use chemical weapons despite the actual *physical* evidence that he did. This means that Tulsi Gabbard ignores objective reality to find a narrative that suits her - and then uses it to inform her conclusions, and thus, her decisions. This is *not* someone suited to lead any intelligence-gathering apparatus. Ignoring what *is* for what is *desired* does not lead to rational decision-making.

So even by the most generous of graces, Tulsi Gabbard is at best, a moron who looks to justify her own pre-conceived conclusions. And that's not someone I'd want in charge of intelligence.

Thanks for the question, Anon.

SomethingLikeALawyer, Hand of the King

[mariacallous]

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s looming return to office is causing sleepless nights in Europe. Diplomats expect Trump 2.0 will cause more headaches because the world is less stable today than it was in 2017.

Chief among their fears is the growing partnership between Russia, China, Iran, and North Korea. “Trump is getting one global theater. And everything our adversaries are doing right now seems connected,” a Western security official said, on the condition of anonymity.

It’s unclear if Trump—not shy about his domestic agenda coming first—understands exactly what the prospect of an alliance between four nuclear powers whose leaders hate the United States means.

“These are four countries who are already working together against American interests,” said Brett Bruen, former White House global engagement director. “North Korea is helping Russia invade Ukraine. Iran’s proxies are attacking ships in the Red Sea. China is buying Iranian oil. It all fits and could get worse if Trump becomes more isolationist.”

North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un’s decision to aid Russia by sending troops to Ukraine is the most surprising and ostentatious example of how the axis of autocracies might continue to grow.

The benefits to the Kremlin are obvious: Russia has suffered heavy losses since the start of the war, and North Korea is willing to help plug that gap by sending its own men to near-certain death.

What’s in it for Pyongyang is less clear. “There is significant risk of North Korean soldiers defecting as soon as they arrive in Ukraine—something the South Koreans are preparing for,” said John Everard, the former U.K. ambassador to North Korea. “Defections from his elite special forces would embarrass Kim. It would also be a major embarrassment if his troops turn out to be useless. It could damage his reputation as a man to be truly feared.”

However, Everard also said that Kim needs a backup plan. “North Korea has been almost solely reliant on China for a long time, and China has been signaling its displeasure at Kim’s new relationship with Russia,” Everard said. “Meanwhile, we don’t know what Kim is getting in return for sending troops to Russia. Perhaps he wants help developing new nuclear weapons and missile technology, or perhaps he has been forced to agree to send troops because, now that his stockpiles are exhausted, he can no longer meet Russian demands for munitions.”

NATO officials fear a global escalation of the European conflict. If North Korea continues to support Russia, does South Korea support Ukraine by sending missiles? Might Ukraine strike North Korean targets? And if it did, would North Korea demand China makes good on treaty commitments to protect North Korea? While alliance sources say that is “close to China’s worst nightmare,” it’s being seriously considered.

Anything that eases Russia’s burden in Ukraine gives Russian President Vladimir Putin room for his long-term objective: weakening the West and expanding Russian influence. Europe will continue as his primary target.

“The Kremlin and its proxies have attempted to influence multiple elections in Europe with the specific aim of installing pro-Russian politicians or governments across the continent,” said Keir Giles, a senior consulting fellow in the Russia and Eurasia program at Chatham House.

Whether it’s claims that the United States sees Europe as a colony via NATO or that Ukrainian neo-Nazis are offering human sacrifices to pagan gods, there are thousands of examples of Kremlin proxies seeking to coerce Europeans into hating Putin’s enemies. This type of activity often peaks during elections and has helped Kremlin stooges, such as Irakli Kobakhidze in Georgia, win elections or grow in strength across Europe.

Obviously, anti-West and anti-NATO sentiment is a danger in Europe itself, but it also has consequences for Americans. “The United States benefits when Europe’s economy thrives. It benefits from a strong Europe standing up for U.S. interests further afield, especially in Asia. There is no benefit to the United States if Europe becomes a Putin playground,” Giles said.

For Iran, the new axis of autocracies provides answers to some existential questions. Bluntly, Iran needs allies, and its relations with the other three are largely transactional.

“Iran plays different roles for each of these actors: To Russia, it’s a military partner and potential thorn in the side of the United States. To China, Iran is key to energy security and specifically the security of oil shipments from the Gulf,” said Mohammad Ali Shabani, editor of Amwaj.media, a website that publishes analysis on the Middle East.

Iran, a country with multiple regional enemies—chiefly Israel—might seek increased military support later. This could be of concern to the United States if the region becomes less stable in the coming years. “The main threat that Iran could potentially pose for the United States is in the region, with American military bases and other facilities potentially at risk in the event of an all-out confrontation,” Ali Shabani said.

All the potential chaos the other three can cause would suit China well, especially if Trump whacks Beijing with steep tariffs once in office.

One European diplomat explained that a common fear among their peers is that Trump doesn’t fully grasp how many moving parts there are nor how they interact with each other. There is legitimate concern, for example, that Trump will cut a deal on Ukraine and pull back from NATO. Doing so would expose European security and leave the continent vulnerable to Russia. Trump also wants to impose tariffs on European exporters.

“You cannot withdraw support for Europe’s security, hit their economies, then expect their companies to stop selling semiconductors to China or consumers to not buy cheaper Chinese goods, which means what happens in Europe now could have consequences for Taiwan, which would have consequences for allies in the Indo-Pacific. It’s all connected,” the diplomat said.

Fears that Trump doesn’t take global affairs seriously are hardly new. But what might be different in his second term is how much, or how little, attention he pays to the rest of the world.

“The first time around, people were worried he would be looking for reasons to hit the red button,” Bruen said. “I think this time, it’s more concerning that he will turn a blind eye to the rest of the world and see the behavior of people like Putin and [Chinese President Xi Jinping] as not being America’s problem.”

Trump might want to focus on a purely domestic agenda, as is his right. But enemies are looking at a potential void right now and seeing an opportunity to reach a shared objective: to take a major bite out of Washington’s global influence and swallow it up themselves.

[hero-israel]

American Muslims throwing away their vote on pro-Putin Russian-stooge Jill Stein will go down in history as one of the dumbest decisions in coalition-building history:

https://x.com/JewishWonk/status/1833508960600535133

Congratulations, idiots, now you have no place at the table with the Democrats or the Republicans. You're officially politically homeless. And at a time where Islamophobia among the rest of Americans is at 2016-levels, rapidly approaching post-9/11 numbers of Muslim-distrust, broadcasting to everyone that you're willing to risk the well-being of every woman and minority in the country to a second Trump presidency because you're too busy throwing a temper tantrum that Biden won't allow the Arab League to wipe Israel off the map is certainly A Choice.

.

[tomorrowusa]

Right now is the time to get involved in the defeat of America's most dangerous enemy since the Cold War.

The traditional election season, starting on Labor Day, is a thing of the distant political past. And considering the magnitude of the threat to democracy, even waiting for the end of the primary season may be too late.

The worst president in our history is, arguably, stronger within the leadership ranks of the Republican Party than he has ever been. He is now the most dangerous presidential candidate in U.S. history. As a consequence, the great question before the rest of us is whether enough of us are ready to do whatever is necessary to defeat this threat as we have all those that have come before. Sadly, there is reason to believe that this time we may not meet the challenge. Right now, Donald Trump is one of two people who could be our next president. The race, at the moment, between him and President Joe Biden, is too close to call.

The people with their heads up their ass over Biden's age are either hypocrites or dissemblers. On Inauguration Day 2025, Donald Trump will be 95.66% of Joe Biden's age. And Trump will also be older in January of 2025 than Biden was upon assuming office in 2021. Biden may have a lifelong stutter but he is still grounded in reality in a way the narcissistic nepo baby Donald Trump never was.

Joe Biden by any objective metric has been one of the most successful presidents in modern U.S. history. He has led the creation of more major legislative initiatives benefiting the American people than any president in 60 years. He oversaw the creation of more than 14 million jobs during his first three years in office. He has brought down inflation and reduced the prices of vital medicines to affordable levels. He has restored American leadership worldwide, expanded our vital alliances like NATO, and stood up to our enemies. All presidents face challenges and make missteps. But it is hard to deny that in the wake of the U.S. economic recovery, the passage of the American Rescue Plan, the Bipartisan Infrastructure Bill, the CHIPs and Science Act, and the Inflation Reduction Act, the expansion of NATO, and the creation of new Indo-Pacific alliances, Biden’s record is formidable. That a president with this record is in a horse race with a candidate who is a menace to the country, who led an insurrection, who is a pathological liar whom courts have found to be a fraud and a rapist, and who has no real ideas, no credible policy proposals, no record of actually ever achieving anything for the American people is chilling.

In normal times, over 40% of US voters would NOT pick a notorious sex offender for president. But these are not normal times.

You would have thought that the sight of mobs carrying Trump flags and weapons and chanting for the death of Vice President Mike Pence on January 6, 2021, would have been alarm enough. You would have thought the same of Trump’s Access Hollywood tape, in which he confessed his impulse to abuse women. You would have thought the two dozen women who accused him of abuse would have had that effect. Even if none of those things were quite warning enough, you would have thought the findings in the E. Jean Carroll case would have been enough. After all, respected federal judge Lew Kaplan wrote, “The fact that Mr. Trump sexually abused—indeed, raped—Ms. Carroll has been conclusively established and is binding in this case.” It should have been enough. But so far, it has not been.

And who would have thought that the party of Ronald Reagan is now led by a stooge of the Evil Empire?

You would have thought that Trump reaching out on national television to our Russian adversaries for aid during the 2016 campaign would have been enough. You would have thought the conclusive findings of every major U.S. intelligence agency that Russia sought to aid Trump’s campaign would have been enough. You would have thought that Robert Mueller’s finding 10 instances of possible obstruction of justice by Trump would have been enough. You would have thought Trump kowtowing to Vladimir Putin and taking his word over that of our intelligence and law enforcement communities would have been enough. You would have thought his illegally withholding aid to Ukraine to seek dirt on Joe Biden would have been enough. You would have thought his impeachment for that would have been enough.

Are you willing to spend more time and money than in previous election cycles to end a major threat to Western democracy and to undermine homegrown fascism for at least the rest of this decade?

So, ask yourself, is that enough to make you do more than you have done? Is that enough to commit for the next 10 months to do more than you have ever done during an election year? To give more? To canvas more? To spread the word more? To help get voters to the polls? To ensure every member of your family, your friends, your co-workers do the same? The stakes are too high to do less than everything you can.

I rarely quote Margaret Thatcher and would probably disagree with at least 90% of her views. But she did know something about winning elections and combating the USSR. If she was good for just one thing, it's for this observation in a speech made in her retirement.

[N]o battles are ever finally won; you have to go on winning them by example and by being prepared to defend your way of life against those who would attack it.

If we learn just one thing from the Trump threat, it's that we can never rest on our past laurels. A slacker democracy is one which will not outlast a determined demagogue.

Civic involvement by pro-democracy citizens is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom.