Already did a piece on this a lil bit ago but lets go a lil deeper into some things:
First of all?
Who exactly is:
"The new voice of the Ukraine"?
Until the bucket trucks arrived that Sunday AM?
I had never seen them listed as a source from an article.
Do a lil bit of quick research
and?
Go to the bottom of their website
and you'll find:
Overview
PUBLISHING HOUSE MEDIA DC LLC
is an entity in Kyiv,
registered with the
System for Award Management (SAM)
of U.S. General Services Administration (GSA).
The entity was registered on July 24, 2017 with Unique Entity ID (UEI) #C3EYB5KBVLE7, activated on November 15, 2022, expiring on November 15, 2023, and the business was started on March 24, 2014.
The registered business location is at 86, Kyrylivska Street, Kyiv, 04080, UKR. The current status is Active. The entity structure is 2K - Partnership or Limited Liability Partnership. The business types are A8 - Non-Profit Organization. The officers of the entity include Olha Demidova.
etc. etc. etc...
So yeah...a lil interesting to say the least.
I also found interesting the fact that the article seems to start off in the middle:
First line:
“The Russians claimed, and we were told, that Kinzhals cannot be shot down,” he said.
Who exactly said it?
It wasn't included beforehand just:
“The Russians claimed, and we were told, that Kinzhals cannot be shot down,” he said.
I'm reading just going...well this is kinda weird to start off like that and from a source I had never heard of before?
"He suggested that if a Patriot air defense system did indeed shoot down the Kinzhal, then this experience would be useful not only for Ukraine but also for NATO countries, particularly U.S., which produces Patriots."
(WHO?)
"However, Ponomarenko noted that Russians would not reduce their use of these ballistic missiles after this event."
Well thank you so much for telling me who is saying what.
Why did it take till the fourth paragraph
to tell me is my question?
"Illia Ponomarenko
Defense reporter
Illia Ponomarenko is the defense and security reporter at the Kyiv Independent. He has reported about the war in eastern Ukraine since the conflict’s earliest days. He covers national security issues, as well as military technologies, production, and defense reforms in Ukraine.
(That doesn't necessarily make you a "military historian" to me.)
Besides, he gets deployed to the war zone of Donbas with Ukrainian combat formations. He has also had deployments to Palestine and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an embedded reporter with UN peacekeeping forces. Illia won the Alfred Friendly Press Partners fellowship and was selected to work as USA Today's guest reporter at the U.S. Department of Defense."
Anyway(s) lol.
Getting past all of that?
Here is what I really wanna concentrate on, as I haven't seen this pot forth anywhere else:
This is:
Illia Ponomarenko BTW
or so were told.
“They don’t use Kinzhals very often anyway,
because they do not have many of them,”
he noted."
(Where exactly is he getting his information from?
He quotes no other sources and it just gets treated here as fact. The fact is? We dont know how many Kinzhals Russia has. It just reminds me of when we were hearing:
"The Russians are running out of missiles.'
a lil while back, and here we are a year later still getting larger and larger salvos being fired off. How exactly do the "experst" get that wrong? but are getting:
“They don’t use Kinzhals very often anyway,
because they do not have many of them,”
right exactly?
“The stockpile of these missiles they have is not very large."
(Yeah...we know.
They are running out of the other missiles as well right?
Makes perfect sense.
I mean it just flies in the face of what we are currently seeing on the ground.)
"They keep them as a strategic reserve in case of a large-scale war with NATO."
(There isn't any:
"in case of
a large-scale war with NATO"
It's more like:
"When the large scale war with NATO starts")
"They might be happy to bury us with these missiles, but they believe that after they’re done with Ukraine, they will be in conflict with other NATO countries. And for that, they also need some arsenal.”
(The Russians dont just
"believe"
"that after they’re done with Ukraine,
they will be in conflict with other NATO countries."
They know it.
It's always been the plan from day one.
Use junk to dwindle our
(US, NATO, 40 allied countries)
stockpiles,
then go on the offensive for what they really want:
The end of NATO,
the EU,
and the $'s dominance
as the worlds reserve currency etc.
Remember this?
02/28/2022 01:45 PM EST
"Reynolds: So Putin is being driven by emotion right now, not by some kind of logical plan?
Fiona Hill: I think there’s been a logical, methodical plan that goes back a very long way, at least to 2007 when he put the world, and certainly Europe, on notice that Moscow would not accept the further expansion of NATO. And then within a year in 2008 NATO gave an open door to Georgia and Ukraine. It absolutely goes back to that juncture.
Again that is Fiona Hill, "one of America’s most clear-eyed Russia experts, someone who has studied Putin for decades, worked in both Republican and Democratic administrations and has a reputation for truth-telling'
So Putin has had a plan since at least 2007?
But he doesn't have many
Yeah...you should already know whats comin':
I'm mean seriously,
I dont care who is pulling the punches here:
"Son?
Y'all got to do better than this."
No comments:
Post a Comment