VigilanteNav

If you only read those articles you referenced, I see how you take it as overwhelming evidence of western involvement and therefore the "coup" happened only because the west directed it. Yet, a few issues with these... First article: Its an opinion piece written by Seumas Milne. Among many questionable views he has is this beauty from 2006: In a 2006 Guardian article, Milne argued: "For all its brutalities and failures, communism in the Soviet Union, eastern Europe and elsewhere delivered rapid industrialisation, mass education, job security and huge advances in social and gender equality. It encompassed genuine idealism and commitment ... Its existence helped to drive up welfare standards in the west, boosted the anticolonial movement and provided a powerful counterweight to western global domination. I dunno, but I might disagree with this author's take on world events. If you agree with his take, then the downfall of the Soviet Union was a net negative for the US and Reagan was wrong to tell Gorby to tear down his wall. Second article: no proof in that that the US/West directed the "coup". Third article: this one was more thought provoking but yet still leaves doubts as to the ground truth of who really made the "coup" happen. For example, per the Rand study here, Putin immediately started the Crimean operation within days of the "coup". What are the chances the Russian military (so famous for its centralized control, decentralized execution...I kid) was able to pull that off within days without a whole lot of planning? Lessons from Russia's Operations in Crimea and Eastern Ukraine | RAND Guess we can agree to disagree on the 2014 "coup" in Ukraine. From the article I referenced: But the truth underlying the events of February 2014 is far more interesting: The preponderance of evidence suggests that it was Moscow itself that triggered Yanukovych’s departure in order to launch a pre-arranged Plan B—the invasion of Crimea and an engineered “uprising” in eastern Ukraine—after Moscow’s Plan A—a new treaty with a pliant government in Kyiv that placed it under Russia’s de facto control—was about to fail. Indeed, the timeline shows that preparations for Plan B were well underway before Yanukovych’s removal from office. All this, in turn, demonstrates that Russian President Vladimir Putin’s plans for Ukraine were far more predatory all along than merely preventing the country’s drift toward NATO, as many of Russia’s Western apologists contend. You can call this spin but I'm going with it as more than likely what actually happened especially seeing as how Putin has operated over the last few decades. Not to mention the famous quote of his that the fall of the Soviet Union was the worst geopolitical disaster in the history of the world. With that mindset, his main driving force is to recreate it and he can always use the threat of NATO to rally his people to get behind his efforts toward that effect. With that said, going to leave this argument at that from my end. Onto what the future holds: More solid analysis from the ISW on what's going on in Putin's nugget. Sure doesn't look like he wants Peace. Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, March 6, 2025 | Institute for the Study of War

Her backup B-29, Huge Cock, will be rightfully added to the pictures in the halls of the Pentagon soon... War heroes and military firsts are among 26,000 images flagged for removal in Pentagon's DEI purge | AP News SMH.

Regarding the history of Ukraine that many on here are attempting to skew. Putin could have very likely executed the "coup" in Ukraine in 2014... The Stubborn Legend of a Western 'Coup' in Ukraine If you haven't watched this yet, highly recommend as well.. Looking further back, the Ukrainians had successful revolutions before so it wasn't like 2014 was a new thing. See the Orange Revolution of 2004 (in which Putin had the pro-Western candidate poisoned btw). And if all that doesn't cause you to think about why the Ukrainians on the whole would want to align with the West and not Russia, think about how the average US citizen votes..."it's the economy stupid". The EU's GDP dwarfs Russia's, always has, always will. Italy's alone is bigger than Russia's to put it into perspective. Hence: quoting from the FP article: The Maidan mass protests—which lasted from November 2013 to February 2014 in Kyiv and many other cities across Ukraine—erupted when Yanukovych pivoted from a wide-ranging association agreement with the European Union to a similar one with the Russian-led Eurasian Economic Union. If you still want to go with the CIA funded the coup through USAID angle. think about why an average human being would want to go sit out in the dead of winter for months and months on end and eventually at the risk of getting beaten to a pulp, shot, etc? They'd do that because some 'pro-western" office was stood up in their cities and towns and they just wandered into it and said what do you offer? Or, might it be a bit more likely they were fed up with a Russian influenced economy that was leaving them with no options for a better future?

Another interesting analysis of what's going on in Putin's nugget that is putting pressure on him. Why Putin is finally negotiating – POLITICO To your point, the EU has a lot of room for improvement in order to ramp up the financial pressure on him. Such as this... France warms to idea of seizing Russian assets in Europe – POLITICO Although I don't agree with our freeze on military aid, that could just be the final nudge that the UK/EU needed to fully go all in on their support.

Solid analysis as always from the ISW that explains some deeper thoughts going on in Putin's nugget. Coupled with the fact that the Russian economy has transitioned into a wartime one that needs the war (or buildup to a future war) to continue in order to sustain its growth, Putin has just as much incentive to continue the war as to stop it. Even in a ceasefire deal, Russia will merely stop active fighting but continue to build up and regenerate the forces needed to invade again at a later date. Therefore, Zelensky wants security guarantees as part of the overall deal. Honestly, I think Zelensky knows they've lost the land that the Russians hold right now and he knows they will lose more and more as time goes on. But, he also knows that without any real security guarantees (UK/EU boots on the ground at least), any ceasefire deal with Putin ain't worth the paper its written on (as has been proven over and over again). Putin is Unlikely to Demobilize in the Event of a Ceasefire Because He is Afraid of His Veterans | Institute for the Study of War The summary: A near-constant state of military mobilization is therefore one of the least politically risky configurations for Putin. This dynamic will likely prompt Putin to maintain high levels of military readiness to simultaneously set conditions that would allow him to sustain a protracted or future war against Ukraine and/or prepare for a confrontation with NATO while minimizing the threat that Russian veterans may undermine his regime. US policymakers must take these Russian incentives into account when assessing Russia’s negotiating position, and when evaluating what propositions the Kremlin is likely to reject.

The ANG accession 4 year commitment is standard and is a separate commitment from any ADSC/Palace Chase/etc. I have accessed into the ANG 3 times and each time had to sign a 4 year contract (found one online as an example) regardless of what ADSC I had which was really none each time. 2 times were basically Palace Fronts and once was a move from the Reserves to the ANG. Twice I left the ANG prior to the 4 year point but both times were to move elsewhere and continue serving (once to the Reserves and once onto AD (VLPAD)). So, its possible to leave a unit prior to the 4 year commitment expiring but not sure if it would be approved just to discontinue service completely. https://www.101arw.ang.af.mil/Portals/1/documents/Statement of Agreement and Understanding - v7 dated Sep 2017.pdf?ver=2018-06-01-091745-607 I guess you can talk to the unit leadership about signing on with a shorter commitment and see what they say. The issue will likely be that they would have to get that approved by the NGB (ANG A1 specifically). Trust me that would not be a quick process (glacial movement would be a good description). IMHO, if you are dead set on not getting a 4 year commitment, I'd go to the Reserves where there should be no extra commitment over the ADSC/Palace Chase ones...unless, someone chimes in that they have actually experience in accessing into the ANG with a shorter than 4 year commitment.

Hegseth dropping out in 5,4,3,2.... Got to say, DeSantis a way, way, way better choice on the whole. He'll sail through the Senate confirmation process as a non event. Has actually run a large organization. Has been in the House so knows that everything the DOD needs to get better on actually needs to get legislated through the House. Decent cultural warrior for those that care about that stuff...but, knows when to say when...(ie...his backing off on the war on Disney). The downside for the USAF perspective is that being a Navy guy one can assume he's not going to push for any big changes to get the USAF the more funding (relative to the Army and Navy) that it surely needs to modernize quicker than the status quo. That's the real concern for the USAF that the likes of Deptula, etc have been preaching (not whether or not we can or can't have beards).

Very lucky it wasn't a military trained dude. Always go for center of mass not the head.

Tony says all that needs to be said... Solution in Search of a Problem - by Tony Carr - The Radar (substack.com)

Pretty sick stuff by Putin but unsurprising. You'd think this would push Congress over the edge on providing the Ukraine funding package that's been held up by the MTGs, etc. But, alas, maybe not. " joint investigation by 60 Minutes, the Insider, and Der Spiegel strongly suggests that the Kremlin has waged a sustained kinetic campaign directly targeting US government personnel both in the United States and internationally for a decade, with the likely objective of physically incapacitating US government personnel." Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, April 1, 2024 | Institute for the Study of War (understandingwar.org)

I doubt he'll read it but this brought me great pleasure in envisioning BC's head exploding as he reads this. Enjoy! https://www.wired.com/story/man-gets-217-covid-vaccine-shots-totally-fine/

More interesting than tank kills. Ukraine's Defence Intelligence posts final flight path of downed Russian A-50 – map | Ukrainska Pravda So, that's 2 x A-50s down and this latest one is claimed to be from an S-200 (SA-5) and not a Patriot. Pretty impressive they pulled out a system that in open sources says they retired 10 years ago and proceeded to shoot down an aircraft at that range. This combined with the reporting that they've shot down around 10 fighters in the past week or so is making for a bad week for the Russian Air Force. Ukraine might be losing some ground but the Russian Air Force is paying for it.

Interesting, it's almost as if they waited until after the Tucker interview.... Russian activist and Putin critic Alexei Navalny dies in prison | Alexei Navalny | The Guardian

Some news to push this thread back towards its original topic... Russian activist and Putin critic Alexei Navalny dies in prison | Alexei Navalny | The Guardian My assumption is it won't move the needle in any direction. Sadly.

My apologies. Should have said "effectively veto'd" instead. Senate advances Ukraine aid bill despite Trump opposition | Reuters Regardless, I guess you can call me a pro-war bubba. I'll continue to be happy to side with Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan. And, yeah, would have liked to see some US border security funding included in this bill. But, the grand master said all or nothing and so they had to go with nothing.