Russian leaders call for assassination of Zelensky and nuclear retaliatory strike on Ukraine following what may be a false flag operation to justify a major escalation in response to counteroffensive
You should go on Robert F Kennedy's podcast. He just had Douglas Macgregor on his show on Friday, May 5, and the focus of that show was the Ukraine war. Robert F Kennedy is running for the Democrat nomination for President.
RFK Jr. was also on a podcast called the All-In podcast, in which David Sacks was one of the co-hosts. In that podcast, he stated repeatedly that he would settle the conflict (when they asked him if he would cut off aid, he didn't explicitly say he would, but it can be implied that he would). Another important moment from the All-In podcast is when RFK talks about China and Taiwan. RFK said that if Xi invades Taiwan, he would de-escalate the conflict. He goes on to lament how there's a war party in Washington that is encouraging such a conflict. When asked if he would defend Taiwan, he said "that's a question I would not answer". His reasoning is that he would be committing the country to a war in the future that would be the bloodiest war ever fought (this conversation starts at the 17:17 mark in the video linked below).
I don't believe RFK will be the Democrat nominee; the DNC won't let that happen. I hope he ends up running as an independent and has a substantial chance of winning the Presidency. If he could win the presidency, then I hope that China would be willing to wait until he takes office before making a move on Taiwan, considering Biden's repeated statements that he would defend Taiwan militarily and the news about how Biden is deploying nuclear submarines in South Korea.
As an aside, I do wish that RFK would have explicitly said that he wouldn't defend Taiwan militarily, but his answer does seem to imply that he wouldn't. However, it's still better than what Biden has said 4 times.
I would love to go on RFK Jr.'s podcast as I think he is excellent on war issues. However, I don't have any contacts to him. Do you have an email address I could use to reach out to him? If RFK was elected President and China had not attacked Taiwan yet I do think they would likely wait until after he was elected President to gjve him a last chance to negotiate a reunification deal before they invaded. Ukraine won't agree to a cease fire with Russia unless we cut off military aid to Ukraine and don't restore it until they have fully implemented the armistice agreement.
Unfortunately, I don't have an email address. He is on Twitter however, so you could reach out to him with a personal message. His twitter account is @RobertKennedyJr. Also, you could probably send a message to his campaign at https://www.kennedy24.com/contact. I hope this helps.
Yes, I have heard you make the point before about how Ukraine won't agree to a ceasefire until we cut off aid, and I think that assessment is spot on.
"We know Ukraine has tried in the past to assassinate Russian political and military leaders with mixed success." But have they tried those exploding cigars they tried with Castro :-) (That's a joke, for those monitoring this)
But a serious comment: We keep hearing about the upcoming Ukrainian offensive in the south.... however, I thought all their troops were pretty much gone. Are they going to now use 12 year olds?
Ukraine has just enough troops for a spring offensive but they have reason to know it will turn into a meatgrinder for them which may further deplete their forces to be unable to defend from a major Russian offensive elsewhere. That may be the reason why Putin has delayed Russia's spring offensive to wait until Ukraine has committed its reserves into a futile counteroffensive in the south allowing Russia to roll up Ukrainian forces in the east.
Spot-on assessment. Nice one. Well said that Russia's restraint being touted as strategic failures and faltering capabilities in both areas of equipment & personnel
To my mind, the best solutions are :
a) Russia to cease so called special operations upon signed undertaking from Ukraine, NATO & EU (jointly) for (i) non inclusion of Ukraine in perpetuity into NATO portals and also as an EU member & (ii) non-nuclear status of Ukraine for perpetuity against which Russia will have to return all occupied areas (excepting Crimea) and removal of all sanctions imposed upon Russia with immediate effect.
b) If Ukraine is obdurate of being a part of NATO & EU then, Ukraine to call for ceasefire by surrendering all Russian occupied areas to Russia
Option 'a' would be best and world leaders / UN need to galvanise to impose on Russia & Ukraine for acceptance. Can't leave ceasefire discussions to EU & NATO as it is but soo blatantly obvious that their motivation is not driven by military objective
Unfortunately, Russia will never agree to cede any of its newly annexed territories. They will escalate to the subkiloton nuclear level if necessary to defend them and the Biden administration is obviously concerned they will do exactly that given their deployment of nuclear sensors all over Ukraine.
I see so much Western media and commentators talking about how Ukraine has exposed the Red Army as a paper tiger. But I can't believe this is all the the Red Army is capable of. As you say, Russia is a bigger country with a bigger economy and much more war fighting material. I know Ukrainians are fighting for the homeland and the Russian soldiers seem not very committed, but the overwhelming difference in numbers has to be important. A lightweight cannot stand in the middle of the ring with a heavyweight and trade punches. The bigger fighter is going to win out. Ukraine is going to run out of soldiers at some point.
Exactly. The truth is that Putin could force Ukraine's surrender within a week if he wanted to by using a massive cyber and space warfare attack or even better a low-yield super-EMP nuclear demonstration attack over Kyiv which Biden would be virtually assured not to respond to with direct military action. Such an attack would be a win-win for Russia.
Would you consider an EMP to be a non-lethal weapon? I am talking about a nationwide EMP which would cause a high death toll from destruction of the power grid and infrastructure but technically indirectly causing death. Would a nuclear response be warranted? Would the world see it as a proper response? It sounds like responding to a Taser with lethal force.
Hi David,
You should go on Robert F Kennedy's podcast. He just had Douglas Macgregor on his show on Friday, May 5, and the focus of that show was the Ukraine war. Robert F Kennedy is running for the Democrat nomination for President.
https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/rfkjr/episodes/Col-Douglas-Macgregor-On-Ukraine-e23iuva
RFK Jr. was also on a podcast called the All-In podcast, in which David Sacks was one of the co-hosts. In that podcast, he stated repeatedly that he would settle the conflict (when they asked him if he would cut off aid, he didn't explicitly say he would, but it can be implied that he would). Another important moment from the All-In podcast is when RFK talks about China and Taiwan. RFK said that if Xi invades Taiwan, he would de-escalate the conflict. He goes on to lament how there's a war party in Washington that is encouraging such a conflict. When asked if he would defend Taiwan, he said "that's a question I would not answer". His reasoning is that he would be committing the country to a war in the future that would be the bloodiest war ever fought (this conversation starts at the 17:17 mark in the video linked below).
I don't believe RFK will be the Democrat nominee; the DNC won't let that happen. I hope he ends up running as an independent and has a substantial chance of winning the Presidency. If he could win the presidency, then I hope that China would be willing to wait until he takes office before making a move on Taiwan, considering Biden's repeated statements that he would defend Taiwan militarily and the news about how Biden is deploying nuclear submarines in South Korea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA0OXZuaG0g
As an aside, I do wish that RFK would have explicitly said that he wouldn't defend Taiwan militarily, but his answer does seem to imply that he wouldn't. However, it's still better than what Biden has said 4 times.
I would love to go on RFK Jr.'s podcast as I think he is excellent on war issues. However, I don't have any contacts to him. Do you have an email address I could use to reach out to him? If RFK was elected President and China had not attacked Taiwan yet I do think they would likely wait until after he was elected President to gjve him a last chance to negotiate a reunification deal before they invaded. Ukraine won't agree to a cease fire with Russia unless we cut off military aid to Ukraine and don't restore it until they have fully implemented the armistice agreement.
Unfortunately, I don't have an email address. He is on Twitter however, so you could reach out to him with a personal message. His twitter account is @RobertKennedyJr. Also, you could probably send a message to his campaign at https://www.kennedy24.com/contact. I hope this helps.
Yes, I have heard you make the point before about how Ukraine won't agree to a ceasefire until we cut off aid, and I think that assessment is spot on.
"We know Ukraine has tried in the past to assassinate Russian political and military leaders with mixed success." But have they tried those exploding cigars they tried with Castro :-) (That's a joke, for those monitoring this)
But a serious comment: We keep hearing about the upcoming Ukrainian offensive in the south.... however, I thought all their troops were pretty much gone. Are they going to now use 12 year olds?
Ukraine has just enough troops for a spring offensive but they have reason to know it will turn into a meatgrinder for them which may further deplete their forces to be unable to defend from a major Russian offensive elsewhere. That may be the reason why Putin has delayed Russia's spring offensive to wait until Ukraine has committed its reserves into a futile counteroffensive in the south allowing Russia to roll up Ukrainian forces in the east.
Spot-on assessment. Nice one. Well said that Russia's restraint being touted as strategic failures and faltering capabilities in both areas of equipment & personnel
To my mind, the best solutions are :
a) Russia to cease so called special operations upon signed undertaking from Ukraine, NATO & EU (jointly) for (i) non inclusion of Ukraine in perpetuity into NATO portals and also as an EU member & (ii) non-nuclear status of Ukraine for perpetuity against which Russia will have to return all occupied areas (excepting Crimea) and removal of all sanctions imposed upon Russia with immediate effect.
b) If Ukraine is obdurate of being a part of NATO & EU then, Ukraine to call for ceasefire by surrendering all Russian occupied areas to Russia
Option 'a' would be best and world leaders / UN need to galvanise to impose on Russia & Ukraine for acceptance. Can't leave ceasefire discussions to EU & NATO as it is but soo blatantly obvious that their motivation is not driven by military objective
Unfortunately, Russia will never agree to cede any of its newly annexed territories. They will escalate to the subkiloton nuclear level if necessary to defend them and the Biden administration is obviously concerned they will do exactly that given their deployment of nuclear sensors all over Ukraine.
I see so much Western media and commentators talking about how Ukraine has exposed the Red Army as a paper tiger. But I can't believe this is all the the Red Army is capable of. As you say, Russia is a bigger country with a bigger economy and much more war fighting material. I know Ukrainians are fighting for the homeland and the Russian soldiers seem not very committed, but the overwhelming difference in numbers has to be important. A lightweight cannot stand in the middle of the ring with a heavyweight and trade punches. The bigger fighter is going to win out. Ukraine is going to run out of soldiers at some point.
Exactly. The truth is that Putin could force Ukraine's surrender within a week if he wanted to by using a massive cyber and space warfare attack or even better a low-yield super-EMP nuclear demonstration attack over Kyiv which Biden would be virtually assured not to respond to with direct military action. Such an attack would be a win-win for Russia.
Would you consider an EMP to be a non-lethal weapon? I am talking about a nationwide EMP which would cause a high death toll from destruction of the power grid and infrastructure but technically indirectly causing death. Would a nuclear response be warranted? Would the world see it as a proper response? It sounds like responding to a Taser with lethal force.
Read the newly released book, "Catastrophe Now".
It's like taking a Master Class on understanding the effects and consequences of an EMP.
Yes, its an excellent primer on the effects of a super EMP attack.
Thanks for the recommendation. I just ordered it from Amazon.