re: Latest Updates: Russia-Ukraine Conflict

quote:

---

All I ask is that you acknowledge Russia is, was, and will always be a paper tiger incapable of advancing beyond Ukraine. Stop with the histrionics about Poland and stop comparing Putin to Hitler. Stop trying to have it both ways. Its costing additional Ukranian lives for no reason.

Everying else I say is trolling you lot. All I want is peace and for Ukraine to stop throwing away their nation and their culture to service Zyyyyys ego

---

You really are an odd duck but I think I love it.

quote:

---

You should try it. Did you ever figure out what you meant by spiked up? Do you know why you are Gary? I love this about you Russian bots. People can be Trump voters, for everything he's for, but the second you talk about what a bathhouse cesspool Putin is they scream how you must be Ukrainian. I do think it's cute how you remind people about how your Russian to English translation completely broke down once.

---

A Ukrainian must maintain his "moral".

Just tried the google voice tool, it pics up 'morale" just fine. And moral too, two completely distinct sounding words.

So your pronunciation must be such dogshit or you don't know the difference since you're a fricking Ukrainian troll. And unpaid one, at that.

quote:

---

Just tried the google voice tool, it pics up 'morale" just fine. And moral too, two completely distinct sounding words.

---

Yea but I typed them into my phone... you know like a normal person Gary.

I'm really so glad you answer to Gary now!

Come on guys. Stopping giving JB suck a hard time on his grammar. He is too busy looking up tweets and verifying all of them before posting to worry about grammar

quote:

---

Yea but I typed them into my phone... you know like a normal person Gary. I'm really so glad you answer to Gary now!

---

You're humiliating yourself, troll.

You frick it up every type you type in? You did it at least 4 times. Silly arse Ukrainian troll.

quote:

---

Who really knows, but if Ukraine is losing 22 to 1 like the propaganda says and Russia is losing 1,000 men a day; there’s no way that Ukraine can last the Summer.

---

If you take your head your arse, there is. They've closed the border and getting randos off the street and stuffing them in vans.

Those groups that are engaged in that have now faced pushback with several of them being killed, beaten, their cars and vans being set on fire and protests.

But little Z is using Ukro population as a lifestock to keep the front from collapsing.

quote:

---

All I ask is that you acknowledge Russia is, was, and will always be a paper tiger incapable of advancing beyond Ukraine.

---

If the Russians win in Ukraine, they will have shown the ability to control a country that is around 800 miles east to west. The distance from Vienna to Paris is around 640 miles. A Russian victory in is absolutely going to cause a massive arms race, and if the US leaves NATO, it will be an arms race that will be unlike anything we have ever seen previously.

quote:

---

Its costing additional Ukranian lives for no reason.

---

Absolutely nothing said in this thread or on this board has cost any Ukrainian lives. None of us control the war, nor does anything we say affect it. Random posters on an LSU message board don't have any agency with regards to this conflict.

quote:

---

All I want is peace and for Ukraine to stop throwing away their nation and their culture to service Zyyyyys ego

---

What if the Ukrainians want to fight?

quote:

---

You frick it up every type you type in?

---

Speaking of fricking things up. Your obsession with grammar is weird considering how terrible it is. I have no idea what this is supposed to mean.

quote:

---

I see you're here to boost the moral of this thread up. Slava Ukriniii!

---

Stormy is here for one thing only. To post the ISW Necon Think Tank Reports issued by lifelong Neoconservatives Victoria Nuland and the Kagan Family along with their friends like Bill Kristol. I don't know if you missed it but Grok did a great breakdown of them.




"The Institute for the Study of War (ISW) is often perceived as a biased source due to its leadership, funding, and ideological leanings, but it maintains an image of credibility through strategic presentation and media reliance. Here’s a breakdown of why ISW, despite its connections to Victoria Nuland, the Kagan family, and the military-industrial complex (MIC), is sometimes treated as an unbiased or authoritative source:

Professional Presentation and Detailed Reporting: ISW produces detailed, data-heavy reports, such as daily updates on conflicts like the Ukraine war, complete with maps and tactical analyses. This gives the impression of rigorous, objective research. Their reports are often framed as technical and analytical, which can obscure underlying ideological slants. Media outlets, pressed for time and resources, rely on these ready-made analyses, amplifying ISW’s reach and perceived neutrality.

Neoconservative Roots and Leadership: ISW was founded by Kimberly Kagan, married to Frederick Kagan, a prominent neoconservative. Frederick’s brother, Robert Kagan, is married to Victoria Nuland, a former State Department official tied to U.S. foreign policy decisions, including the 2014 Ukraine Maidan uprising. Robert Kagan co-founded the Project for a New American Century, a neoconservative group that pushed for the Iraq War. This tight-knit network, sometimes called the “Kagan industrial complex,” has deep ties to hawkish policies, raising questions about impartiality. Critics argue ISW’s leadership inherently skews its output toward interventionist agendas.

Funding from the Military-Industrial Complex: ISW receives significant funding from defense contractors like General Dynamics, Raytheon, and CACI, as well as firms like DynCorp and Palantir, which have Pentagon ties. This financial backing creates a conflict of interest, as these companies benefit from prolonged conflicts and increased military spending, aligning with ISW’s advocacy for aggressive foreign policies. However, ISW doesn’t publicly emphasize these ties, allowing it to project an image of independence.

Media Amplification and Lack of Scrutiny: Mainstream media outlets, including The New York Times, CNN, and The Washington Post, frequently cite ISW for its “expertise” on conflicts, often without questioning its funding or ideological bent. This is partly because ISW fills a gap for detailed, accessible analysis in fast-moving news cycles. The media’s failure to highlight ISW’s neoconservative ties or MIC funding helps it maintain a veneer of objectivity.

Neoconservative Ideology and War Promotion: ISW is consistently described as neoconservative or hawkish by sources like Politico, The Guardian, and The Intercept, with some labeling it “ultra-hawkish.” Its reports often frame conflicts in ways that support U.S. military intervention or escalation, such as dismissing Ukraine’s military setbacks as Kremlin propaganda or advocating for arming Syrian rebels. Critics argue this reflects a bias toward perpetual war, aligned with the interests of its funders and leadership. Yet, ISW’s non-partisan self-description and academic tone help it avoid being dismissed outright as a partisan actor.

Public Perception and Institutional Trust: Think tanks like ISW benefit from a broader societal tendency to trust institutions with formal structures, expert staff, and affiliations with respected figures (e.g., General David Petraeus or General Jack Keane on ISW’s board). This trust persists despite criticisms, as many readers don’t dig into funding sources or ideological histories. ISW’s ability to position itself as a go-to source for conflict analysis further cements its influence.

Counterarguments and ISW’s Defense: ISW describes itself as a “non-partisan, non-profit, public policy research organization” focused on reliable analysis. Supporters might argue that its funding from defense contractors is standard for think tanks and doesn’t necessarily dictate its conclusions. They could also claim that its leadership’s expertise in military history and foreign policy lends credibility, not bias. However, these defenses are undermined by the consistent alignment of ISW’s recommendations with neoconservative goals and MIC interests.

Critical Voices on X: Posts on X highlight skepticism about ISW’s impartiality, with users noting its ties to the Kagan family, Nuland, and defense contractors. Some call it a propaganda arm of the U.S. State Department or a tool for promoting endless wars. While these posts reflect public sentiment, they lack the institutional weight to counter ISW’s media dominance.

In summary, ISW’s ability to act as a seemingly unbiased source stems from its polished reports, media reliance, and institutional credibility, despite clear ties to the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, and MIC funding. Its neoconservative ideology and war-promoting tendencies are well-documented but often overlooked due to its strategic framing and the media’s need for quick, authoritative content. For a deeper dive, check ISW’s funding disclosures or cross-reference its reports with primary sources from conflict zones"