Become a part of one of the fastest growing adult communities online. We have something for you, whether you’re a male member seeking out new friends or a new lady on the scene looking to take advantage of our many opportunities to network, make new friends, or connect with people. Join today & take part in lively discussions, take advantage of all the great features that attract hundreds of new daily members!
Where'd the 100 BILLION go? Democrat & Republican leadership pockets...
But you keep on telling us how we just need to send another 100 Billion and the Ukrainians will throw those Russians out and secure the blessings of liberty for themsleves just like we got now!
The same thing you call naive Zelenskyy loving Biden Buddies.
Idiots.
That's whats hilarious... His only answer to Ukraine reporting on the lack of defenses and the fact that contracts were sold to build those defenses is Putin, Putin, Putin. As if Putin is responsible for Ukraine corruption and US money laundering. Putin isn't claiming it, his armies are simply walking into the defenses that US taxpayers paid for but that don't exist.
Remember when FJoeBiden said he told Ukraine to fire Shokin, the guy investigating Burisma for corruption or else he would withold $1Billin of funds?
As it turns out, that was not "official" US State Department's position at all. Further, it turns out Burisma hiring of the Hunter Biden critter was to in fact, bolster their standing with the US State department via one FJoeBiden after all. But the best part is: the disparity was revealed during a Trump impeachment and withheld from the public until now. Quote: New memos undercut Biden-Ukraine narrative Democrats sold during 2019 impeachment scandal
Newly disclosed State Department memos conflict with the narrative Democrats crafted since 2019 impeachment.
Just weeks before then-Vice President Joe Biden took the opposite action in late 2015, a task force of State, Treasury and Justice Department officials declared that Ukraine had made adequate progress on anti-corruption reforms and deserved a new $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee, according to government memos that conflict with the narrative Democrats have sustained since the 2019 impeachment scandal.
“Ukraine has made sufficient progress on its reform agenda to justify a third guarantee,” reads an Oct. 1, 2015, memo summarizing the recommendation of the Interagency Policy Committee (IPC) – a task force created to advise the Obama White House on whether Ukraine was cleaning up its endemic corruption and deserved more Western foreign aid.
The recommendation is one of several U.S. government memos gathered by Just the News over the last 36 months from Freedom of Information Act litigation, congressional inquiries and government agency sources that directly conflict with the long-held narrative that Biden was conducting official U.S. policy when he threatened to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to force Ukraine to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, the country’s equivalent of the American attorney general.
At the time the threat was made in December 2015, Shokin’s office was conducting an increasingly aggressive corruption investigation into Burisma Holdings, an energy firm the State Department deemed to have been engaged in bribery and that employed Hunter Biden and paid him millions while his father was vice president.
New details on the impact of that probe have emerged in recent days.
Shokin's pursuit was rattling Burisma, and the firm was putting pressure on Hunter Biden to deal with it, according to recent testimony and interviews with Devon Archer, Hunter Biden's former business partner and fellow Burisma board member.
The memos obtained by Just the News show:
Senior State Department officials sent a conflicting message to Shokin before he was fired, inviting his staff to Washington for a January 2016 strategy session and sent him a personal note saying they were “impressed” with his office's work.
U.S. officials faced pressure from Burisma emissaries in the United States to make the corruption allegations go away and feared the energy firm had made two bribery payments in Ukraine as part of an effort to get cases settled.
A top U.S. official in Kyiv blamed Hunter Biden for undercutting U.S. anticorruption policy in Ukraine through his dealings with Burisma.
During Trump's first impeachment in late 2019, State officials testified that Hunter Biden's acceptance of a job at Burisma at a time when his father was vice president created the appearance of a conflict of interest but did not materially impact U.S. policy in Ukraine.
But in a private, classified email shared with Just the News, one of the top U.S. officials in the Kyiv embassy told then-Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch at the end of the Obama administration that Hunter Biden had, in fact, impacted the U.S. anti-corruption agenda in Ukraine.
"The real issue to my mind was that someone in Washington needed to engage VP Biden quietly and say that his son Hunter's presence on the Burisma board undercut the anti-corruption message the VP and we were advancing in Ukraine b/c Ukrainians heard one message from us and then saw another set of behavior with the family association with a known corrupt figure whose company was known for not playing by the rules," embassy official George Kent wrote to Yovanovitch in the Nov. 22, 2016, email marked "confidential."... Go figure
Volodymyr Zelensky is the current President of Ukraine. He was elected in a landslide victory in 2019 on the promise of easing tensions with Russia and resolving the crisis in the breakaway republics in east Ukraine. He has made no attempt to keep his word on either issue. Instead, he has greatly exacerbated Ukraine’s internal crisis while relentlessly provoking Russia. Zelensky has had numerous opportunities to smooth things over with Moscow and prevent the outbreak of hostilities. Instead, he has consistently made matters worse by blindly following Washington’s directives.
Zelensky has been lionized in the west and praised for his personal bravery. But—as a practical matter—he has failed to restore national unity or implement the crucial peace accord that is the only path to reconciliation. The Ukrainian president doesn’t like the so-called Minsk Protocol and has refused to meet its basic requirements. As a result, the ethnically-charged, fratricidal war that has engulfed Ukraine for the last 8 years, continues to this day with no end in sight. President Vladimir Putin referred to Zelensky’s obstinance in a recent speech delivered at the Kremlin. He said:
“At yesterday’s event… the Ukrainian leadership publicly declared that they were not going to abide by these agreements. Not going to abide by them. Well, what else can you say about that?” (Vladimir Putin)
Most Americans fail to realize that Zelensky’s rejection of Minsk was the straw that broke the camel’s back. Russian officials had worked for 8 years on Minsk hammering out terms that would be agreeable to all parties. Then—at the eleventh hour—Zelensky put the kibosh on the deal with a wave of the hand. Why? Who told Zelensky to scrap the agreement? Washington?
Of course.
And why did Zelensky deploy 60,000 combat troops to the area just beyond the Line of Contact (in east Ukraine) where they could lob mortal shells into the towns and villages of the ethnic Russians who lived there? Clearly, the message this sent to the people was that an invasion was imminent and that they should either flee their homes immediately or take shelter in their cellars. What objective did Zelensky hope to achieve by forcing these people to huddle in their homes in fear for their lives? And what message did he intend to send to Moscow whose leaders looked on at these developments in absolute horror?
Did he know his actions would set off alarms in Russia forcing Putin to call up his military and prepare them for a possible invasion to protect his people from– what looked to be– a massive ethnic cleansing operation?
He did
So, how are these actions consistent with Zelensky’s campaign promises to restore national unity and peacefully resolve Ukraine’s issues with Russia?
They’re not consistent at all, they are polar opposites. In fact, Zelenskyy appears to be operating off a different script altogether. Take, for example, his complete unwillingness to address Russia’s minimal security concerns. Did Zelensky know that Putin had repeatedly said that Ukraine’s membership in NATO was a “red line” for Russia? Did he know that Putin has been saying the same thing over-and-over again since 2014? Did he know that Putin warned that if Ukraine took steps to join NATO, Russia would be forced to take “military-technical” measures to ensure their own security? Does Zelensky know that NATO is Washington-controlled Alliance that has engaged in numerous acts of aggression against other sovereign states. Here’s a short list of NATO’s accomplishments:
The destruction of Yugoslavia
The destruction of Afghanistan
The destruction of Libya
The destruction of Iraq
The destruction of Syria
Does Zelensky know that NATO is openly hostile to Russia and regards Russia a serious threat to its expansionist ambitions?
Yes, he knows all these things. Still, he publicly expressed his interest in developing nuclear weapons. What is that all about? Imagine the problem that would pose for Russia. Imagine if a US-backed puppet, like Zelensky, had nuclear missiles at his fingertips. How do you think that might impact Russia’s security? Do you think Putin could ignore a development like that and still fulfill his duty to protect the Russian people?...
Elections in Ukraine will take place when all Ukrainians can vote, all of them. - Blinken
So as long as Russia holds territories, there will not be an election, even if there is a long term ceasefire or peace.
Looks like the US Government is getting their forever war where they can continue to launder money... but fcuk that Ukraine Democracy
Imma thunk'n his first sentence might need some tweaking or maybe it's a slight misunderstanding on the reality of the situation. I think the following might be more reflective of actual reality:
Elections in Ukraine will take place when the few surviving Ukrainians can vote, if any.
Back to the OP. I think the reality was, that since Muh Russia, Russia, Russia died such a tragic death and the covid was floundering - they rather rushed the Ukraine programing update to the sheeple, as pictured below:
In their haste, they left behind some unwanted artifacts and had to rush out patches to remove them, such as Pelosi meeting with her son's boss.
Point being, if they keep pouring other peoples money down the bottomless pit, it may buy them time to tweak up the narrative programming. Frankly, I don't see how they can possibly spend enough of other peoples money to totally erase the sheeple's memory, but since when has that ever stopped them from trying.
That problem is there ain't enough money to buff out the blunder of what happens when some one eventually steps on that rake on the ground and gets smacked up side the face with a nuke or two or 200? There is an old saying that the O'Biden has created regarding nuclear alliances:
As goes Russia, so goes Chyyyyna and ain't nothing good for anybody, especially including NATO, in any of that.
Only Fools thought this was about
