Comments by "irresistablejewel" (@irresistablejewel) on "TABLES TURNED: Russians ENTER AVDIIVKA. Ukraine SWITCHED TO “ACTIVE DEFENSE”. Belarus RECEIVED NUKES" video.

Well since Russia has cut off the "EU" gas pipeline which America obviously controlled and mined the farmland American companies got hold of and also seem to know when and where "lethal aid" is arriving, what is there left to invest in? Russia gave the "globalists" fair warning; besides they are too clever and well armed for the dumb capitalists (but they're using public money and Ukrainian lives so they don't need to care... and they don't care about people, even their own homeless). If you are going to be disgusted it should really be because there's a rich persons club we aren't in; full of very cynical interest). Perhaps you might ask why billions are being sent to the Ukrainian mafia? Because that's pretty much what was happening; I can tell you why, but I doubt your congressman (sponsored by Wall St and the arms industry) wants "outsiders" to know. The Senate will know "the investment" in Ukraine has gone up in smoke; while they're glossing over 25,000 dead in Gaza; as for democracy... war or war, vote now! Time to wake up, mate; there's a storm coming and you don't want to find yourself in the teeth of it. Believe me. Fight for us and one day you can live on the streets?! (That just isn't going to get these "poor" people elected). While I think America has done enough in Europe (probably set it back 25 years) Trump 6/5; Putin 4/11... I'm not suggesting you bet; but Russia v Ukraine only goes one way. For Ukraine it was always neutrality or war. (from Russia, with love xx)
1
@DancerVeiled I largely agree with you: on top of a series of increases to a large military budget there is the "lethal aid" budget; a lot of that is going into weapons production (which is good for the domestic economy); old stock (near it's "use by" date) can be exported; while using Eastern Europe as a weapons testing area won't disturb Americans and provides promotional material for the arms shows. While: since the conflict in Ukraine is using public money and Ukrainian lives and those politicians so keen on war (usually haven't been to war and aren't going); likely have a seat in a nuclear bunker and the global population is getting quite large... they can afford to lose a few billion men. That all makes perfect sense "on paper". Maybe that is why America seems to be perpetually at war; with a long list of enemies; maybe it's true "War pays!" (D Cheney). The growing problem might be that: this only works for a few people; other nuclear superpowers may not share Americas interests and if those wanting war won't go, somebody else will have to fight it for them (while they stay home and count money). At the moment the "globalist" concept is; fight for you country (for whatever reason) and one day you can live on the streets. That isn't a very good advert. While if government keeps producing money out of "thin air"; buying power goes down; prices go up and if wages don't keep up; historically it usually leads to civil war. If people don't get to win, once in a while; they won't play the game (nothing in it for them); if public money isn't accounted for properly it leads to corruption; while "trickle down" economics only works on paper; actually the rich get very rich and build space rockets. The rest of us just get to watch. The warmongers don't want accountability; that could spoil everything; but if there is so much "investment" in weaponry; other superpowers must do the same. I don't like the games being played; using my money.
1
That would compromise trust in the EU (as a place to invest) and while money deposited in a bank actually (legally) belongs to the bank; if they just keep it the whole system unravels rather quickly and people might start investing in pitchforks and burning torches? So I doubt the EU would compromise its financial sector over a "money-pit" like Ukraine.
1
@kimberlysheridan5530 I believe there should be some accountability; that doesn't seem popular with a lot of warmongers (who have never been to war), but it is public money being directed into weapons production and exported. Call me selfish, but there must be better investments (here) than sending billions to corrupt countries... and what has Ukraine ever done for us? A lot of former Soviet states went on to join: the EU; NATO, even both; over time they have expanded; but Ukraine was always a "red line" for Russia. While I don't believe the American Senate's "investment" was for humanitarian reasons. American companies had control of Ukrainian agriculture and the "EU gas-pipeline" (by the looks of things); since Russia has put a spanner in the works (mined the farmland and cut off gas supplies) and also seem to know where and when Western "lethal aid" arrives, it looks like the plan is to "delegate" and find alternative funding. If what I say is true; then the American far right are very cynical people indeed; while the major powers all knew if Ukraine gave up neutrality, Russia would go to war (they knew that!). So while we are given a variety of reasons why Ukraine should be supported; the main one for the American far-right seems to have gone up in smoke. If they now resort to stealing; everyone can play that game; so I believe the UK should get it's own house in order before getting into a war in support of American interests. (which, incidentally, seem to have been to damage Europe economically... since they've lost relatively cheap Russian energy and grain; plus have another refugee crisis). ...I regard Ukraine as the architect of it's own destruction. Shame really.
1
@kimberlysheridan5530 Yes, but the UK is actually four countries and while Scotland has it's own: parliament (Holyrood); NHS; legal and electoral system; the UK parliament (Westminster), based in London, has additional powers and largely controls the UK finances. In the UK referendum, regarding EU membership: Scotland voted to remain; the UK voted to leave; so Scotland left the EU. When the UK was in the EU; the Tory government vetoed the 26 other countries, regarding EU bank reform; threatened another over a cap on banker's bonuses; then (after the EU referendum wanted a "good deal". This is the kind of lack of self-awareness commonly found in Westminster, but the referendum did show the Tory priority and that they didn't represent the UK voter (best of three?). Since Scotland has: only 59/650 seats in Westminster; around 10% of the UK population, it's invariably one of two English political parties that form the UK government as that requires 326 seats (either outright, or in coalition), the Scottish seats seats rarely influence who governs. The two main UK parties are "Labour" (originally formed by the trade unions to give workers political representation) and "Conservatives" (aka Tory) who traditionally represent: land owners; corporations and money interests. However that changed when Tony Blair created "New" Labour, which was (and is) a right-wing party: they sold off more infrastructure; took the UK to war (twice) and introduced tuition fees (they were more "anti-socialists"). While the SNP took 56/59 seats basically using old Labour (socialist) policies; there were now two right-wing parties in Westminster; workers lacked representation; a lot of Scots had nothing to vote for (it's an ideological split). In the early 90's I lived and worked in Moscow; as one of two casino troubleshooters (out of the House of Unions); I previously worked in America; subsequently worked in China and darkest Africa; so while I only got snap-shots of different cultures and don't know how others think; things work differently and while I can only tell you a few things with confidence, "The Russia Dude" is a fraud; because he: doesn't think like Russians; exaggerates the accent and knows very little about Moscow and Russia. If you want a glimpse of the Soviet "utopia"; type VDNK; or take a look at the Moscow Metro or Hotel Ukraine (where I ran into a rival group, of "businessmen" from Ukraine). Ukraine was known as the breadbasket of the Soviet Union (USSR); it's also a Slavic country and uses a similar alphabet to Russia, so there are a lot of similarities, but on the matter of grain and beer; While Budweiser lifted the Pilsner process, from Czechoslovakia; America doesn't import grain from Ukraine; while this Ukrainian conflict isn't about Putin; I can assure you; this a Russian matter (regardless of who is President). I'll skip the Bud-light issue; but Russia does not want: hedge-funds; casinos; LGBTQ and it has a soft currency. While the issue over Ukraine is more to do with American companies seizing control of Ukrainian agriculture (million of hectares of prime farmland); the "EU" gas pipeline and the prospect of NATO erecting further missile bases on the border; it's also to do with a cultural thing; don't break promises to Russians (better not to make any). So while the American corporate media give us there version of how things work in Russia, or the UK, it's often laughable. Poverty is becoming a real problem in the West; unions going on strike (no political representation) and with inflation leaving wages behind things could turn ugly. I think what you'll find Russia has been mainly doing is destroying: what the foreign companies bought in Ukraine; the "lethal aid" (how twee) and anything that fires back. The corporate media keeps trying to justify sending billions to a corrupt country; using smear tactics and claiming the West is only here to help, I hope you understand why many civilians are becoming less charitable towards Ukraine (they need to eat; and heat their homes), but I believe the Senate lost their "investment" and while the media talks a lot about winning (and money); in Russia money doesn't mean that much and their intention seems to be that the foreign corporations (who muscled in) lose. To "scotch" another few rumors: Russia doesn't fight 3 day wars; they are technologically driven (not money, or debt driven) and they are highly experienced in land warfare; you can ask Germany about that. Ukraine got a pretty good deal from USSR (imo); they were sovereign; independent; a democracy, but if they gave up neutrality then the alternative is war with Russia. It's not about land; it's not about marching on Paris; it's about who makes the law and lays it down (here that happens to be Russia). Further "investment" from America is in starting a world war; the Russian Dude is simply selling hate and there is no left, left in America (it's all about money, not people). Hope I didn't bore you; but I had some time on my hands; while if you look at the civilian death toll from NATO; an intervention by them is the last thing a country needs. I'd say the price of fuel is more an issue than grain; America 70-80% self sufficient; most import from Canada; while Russia (major exporter of gas and grain, sanctions don't work, so the neocon plan does seem to have been to damage the EU economically... but at what price?). Trump 6/5; Putin 4/11... now on to election war!). If you want an enemy; I suggest it's the corporate media and weasels like this chap.
1
Coining it in... I'd bet!
1
I'm sure he's receiving plenty of compensation; that's why he's here every day making stuff up (even tried "merchandising", but that clearly didn't work). A Russian gloating over the deaths of Russians, with an exaggerated accent, and the absurd "clickbait" headlines. You can believe that if you want; but really this is just a bad actor.
1