Ukraine

lastexitlondon

It's  going to escalate i would say. Power outages now people will starve now as well as be droned. Awful 

mrussel1

MayDay10 said:

Probably some time for talks, right?  Enough people die yet to quench the thirst?

How do you negotiate and hand over part of your land and people to the country that has been murdering them.  And was responsible for murdering several million during Holodomor?

static111

mrussel1 said:

MayDay10 said:

Probably some time for talks, right?  Enough people die yet to quench the thirst?

How do you negotiate and hand over part of your land and people to the country that has been murdering them.  And was responsible for murdering several million during Holodomor?

I understand the apprehension for negotiation, but do you think we risk the perfect being the enemy of the good here?  Serious question.  I don't see the likelihood of A.) Russia being beaten back to pre-2014 borders or B.) Putin pulling out of Ukraine and agreeing to fund to repair all of the destruction he caused.  Is the current funding of arms actually meant to accomplish A or is it just a means of ticking out the clock until Putin dies or is overthrown so that negotiations can be done with someone other than Putin, with the real possibility that this could just become another Defense Department money sink? 

Also Putin is an asshole but Russia under Putin is not the USSR of Stalin in the 30's.  If we use metrics like that I doubt we could ever have negotiations or discussions with anyone ever again.  After all Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation based on that measuring stick.

mickeyrat

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

MayDay10 said:

Probably some time for talks, right?  Enough people die yet to quench the thirst?

How do you negotiate and hand over part of your land and people to the country that has been murdering them.  And was responsible for murdering several million during Holodomor?

I understand the apprehension for negotiation, but do you think we risk the perfect being the enemy of the good here?  Serious question.  I don't see the likelihood of A.) Russia being beaten back to pre-2014 borders or B.) Putin pulling out of Ukraine and agreeing to fund to repair all of the destruction he caused.  Is the current funding of arms actually meant to accomplish A or is it just a means of ticking out the clock until Putin dies or is overthrown so that negotiations can be done with someone other than Putin, with the real possibility that this could just become another Defense Department money sink? 

Also Putin is an asshole but Russia under Putin is not the USSR of Stalin in the 30's.  If we use metrics like that I doubt we could ever have negotiations or discussions with anyone ever again.  After all Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation based on that measuring stick.

do "WE" risk.....?

whos we?

static111

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

MayDay10 said:

Probably some time for talks, right?  Enough people die yet to quench the thirst?

How do you negotiate and hand over part of your land and people to the country that has been murdering them.  And was responsible for murdering several million during Holodomor?

I understand the apprehension for negotiation, but do you think we risk the perfect being the enemy of the good here?  Serious question.  I don't see the likelihood of A.) Russia being beaten back to pre-2014 borders or B.) Putin pulling out of Ukraine and agreeing to fund to repair all of the destruction he caused.  Is the current funding of arms actually meant to accomplish A or is it just a means of ticking out the clock until Putin dies or is overthrown so that negotiations can be done with someone other than Putin, with the real possibility that this could just become another Defense Department money sink? 

Also Putin is an asshole but Russia under Putin is not the USSR of Stalin in the 30's.  If we use metrics like that I doubt we could ever have negotiations or discussions with anyone ever again.  After all Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation based on that measuring stick.

do "WE" risk.....?

whos we?

Western Society, Nato Countries, The entire Human Race, the general we. I could edit it to say or do you think  that there is a risk of the perfect being the enemy of the good here, but I think anyone with a higher than sixth grade grasp of English can understand the concept unless they want to argue semantics rather than thinking or talking about the topic.

mickeyrat

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

MayDay10 said:

Probably some time for talks, right?  Enough people die yet to quench the thirst?

How do you negotiate and hand over part of your land and people to the country that has been murdering them.  And was responsible for murdering several million during Holodomor?

I understand the apprehension for negotiation, but do you think we risk the perfect being the enemy of the good here?  Serious question.  I don't see the likelihood of A.) Russia being beaten back to pre-2014 borders or B.) Putin pulling out of Ukraine and agreeing to fund to repair all of the destruction he caused.  Is the current funding of arms actually meant to accomplish A or is it just a means of ticking out the clock until Putin dies or is overthrown so that negotiations can be done with someone other than Putin, with the real possibility that this could just become another Defense Department money sink? 

Also Putin is an asshole but Russia under Putin is not the USSR of Stalin in the 30's.  If we use metrics like that I doubt we could ever have negotiations or discussions with anyone ever again.  After all Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation based on that measuring stick.

do "WE" risk.....?

whos we?

Western Society, Nato Countries, The entire Human Race, the general we. I could edit it to say or do you think  that there is a risk of the perfect being the enemy of the good here, but I think anyone with a higher than sixth grade grasp of English can understand the concept unless they want to argue semantics rather than thinking or talking about the topic.

so what are WE risking?

seems to me the Ukrainians are the ones choosing this risk. Their supporters would seem to believe in some measure of self-determination.

Should not the Ukrainians drive whatever outcome THEY seek? With support where needed?

WE should have no say in what THEY choose for their country. THEY choose to fight, support that. THEY choose to give up part of their country, thats their business.

Imagine , all the lead up to the invasion, WE, made statements. Correctly interpreting Russian moves. YET did not offer material support then.  How many do you think died until we did?

I wonder where the colonials would have been had France not stepped up.

Check your condescension at the door.

Then again, I forgot. Its the internet, YOU'RE  never seious here.

mrussel1

Mickeyrat is dead right. You can't ask the Ukrainians to forget their history and the deaths of their relatives only a few generations ago. 

I agree that I doubt Ukraine can get Crimea back in any circumstances,  but they cannot be asked to give up the new oblasts that Russia invaded.

Lerxst1992

mrussel1 said:

Mickeyrat is dead right. You can't ask the Ukrainians to forget their history and the deaths of their relatives only a few generations ago. 

I agree that I doubt Ukraine can get Crimea back in any circumstances,  but they cannot be asked to give up the new oblasts that Russia invaded.

But where is Ukraine after Speaker Mccarthy turns off the money spigot?

As much as WE love to dream we can negotiate away the putin problem,  negotiating with him is pointless,  as he is not trustworthy 

And putin knows that American voters are about to hand him a huge assist.

mickeyrat

gift article...

https://wapo.st/3WwKDAB 

  U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
By Missy Ryan, John Hudson and Paul Sonne
November 05, 2022 at 18:29 ET
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.

continues......

static111

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

mrussel1 said:

MayDay10 said:

Probably some time for talks, right?  Enough people die yet to quench the thirst?

How do you negotiate and hand over part of your land and people to the country that has been murdering them.  And was responsible for murdering several million during Holodomor?

I understand the apprehension for negotiation, but do you think we risk the perfect being the enemy of the good here?  Serious question.  I don't see the likelihood of A.) Russia being beaten back to pre-2014 borders or B.) Putin pulling out of Ukraine and agreeing to fund to repair all of the destruction he caused.  Is the current funding of arms actually meant to accomplish A or is it just a means of ticking out the clock until Putin dies or is overthrown so that negotiations can be done with someone other than Putin, with the real possibility that this could just become another Defense Department money sink? 

Also Putin is an asshole but Russia under Putin is not the USSR of Stalin in the 30's.  If we use metrics like that I doubt we could ever have negotiations or discussions with anyone ever again.  After all Democrats are the party of slavery and segregation based on that measuring stick.

do "WE" risk.....?

whos we?

Western Society, Nato Countries, The entire Human Race, the general we. I could edit it to say or do you think  that there is a risk of the perfect being the enemy of the good here, but I think anyone with a higher than sixth grade grasp of English can understand the concept unless they want to argue semantics rather than thinking or talking about the topic.

so what are WE risking?

seems to me the Ukrainians are the ones choosing this risk. Their supporters would seem to believe in some measure of self-determination.

Should not the Ukrainians drive whatever outcome THEY seek? With support where needed?

WE should have no say in what THEY choose for their country. THEY choose to fight, support that. THEY choose to give up part of their country, thats their business.

Imagine , all the lead up to the invasion, WE, made statements. Correctly interpreting Russian moves. YET did not offer material support then.  How many do you think died until we did?

I wonder where the colonials would have been had France not stepped up.

Check your condescension at the door.

Then again, I forgot. Its the internet, YOU'RE  never seious here.

As far as the condescension, I apologize.  I made an assumption based on past posts of yours that the all caps WE was going to be a setup for your own condescension based on some notion of good and evil and patriotism etc as if I don't have a brain, so I just wanted to beat you to the snark.  If I was wrong I'm sorry.  Though I am not serious on the internet the question I posed was.  I don't care what the people's responses are, I would just like to see them put into cogent thoughts.

To your points.  Yes the Ukranians are making the ultimate sacrifice.  Unfortunately this is a geopolitical mess with far reaching effects that may be bankrolled to the tune of 100+bn by the end of the first 12 months of the conflict if reports are to be believed about another 50+bn going towards the war effort courtesy of Uncle Sam.  Because of these facts I think people are allowed to discuss the intricacies of this conflict in means that are outside of the confines of Russia is bad and Ukraine + the West is good and no further thought is necessary.

Do we want to go so far with our support that this becomes an open war and paves the way to WW3?  I don't.  That doesn't mean that we should revoke all support for Ukraine or even slow down on the military aid.  It could mean that we create dialogues with Russia, especially dialogues outside of Putin's sphere.  I'm sure some oligarchs and business people would be open to a palace coup.

If we don't cross any lines that would lead to WW3 and continue on the same track are we(the US and West in general) okay with the potential that this becomes another 20 year sink of lives and money with the only winners being defense contractors?  I am not.
What is the plan? To provide support as long as it takes or until we, Russia or Ukraine has a regime change?  That doesn't seem smart.  I'm all for support if there is a real foreseeable path to victory.

Putin is a king shit. If the real reason we (the west) can't have a dialogue with Russia is the Putin is literally Hitler and want's to remake the USSR and that any capitulation or negotiation leads to taking Poland and the Baltics next, this leads me back to why not a targeted strike at the leader of the Russian aggressions.

Since it isn't realistic to think that Putin is going to end the war out of the niceness of his heart and give back all of Ukraine in the image of pre 2014 lines and repay for all the destruction caused, it seems like some other alternatives can be discussed that don't lead to further escalation and aggression.

Is the only path forward to continue to fund Ukraine with more and more weapons as long as it takes and put them in debt to the US government and the IMF?  

If Putin is Hitler and can't be reasoned with and the Russian army is defecting and Putin has no approval within Russia, taking out the literal second coming of Hitler seems like something the entire international community would be behind.  

I also have a general distrust that our military really has the best interests of Ukraine at heart after our dismal track record of aggression and lies and wasted lives and dollars during my lifetime and that leads me to come from an angle of being a bit skeptical of anything that comes from the mouthpiece of our war machine.

Colonials and France vs England has been so mythologized and rehashed it is impossible to know what would have happened without the French support. I'm sure the French weren't supporting the colonialists out of the good of their hearts though. Wild speculation could be that the upstarts failed and African chattel slavery and the whole system of the south in general would have never came to be.  Maybe the sun would have never set on the English empire and the rise of hitler would have never happened.  Massive targeted killing of buffalo and native American populations under the direct authority of the US govt would have never happened.  We might have a parliamentary form of government. Impossible to know and not worth speculating.  I also don't see a parallel between the colonies and England and Ukraine and Russia.  Ukraine is an established independent country that was illegally invaded, the colonies were the property of the British crown and some holders of corporate charters that got in disputes with some of the colonizers and decided to have a big war that led to the establishment of a new nation.  Clearly Russia invading Ukraine is a worse grievance than "taxation without representation" especially considering that one of the main grievances against the king was “He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes, and conditions.” 

Anyway I only wanted to know what Mrussels real thoughts were on the subject of not having dialogues with Russia and if the increase of hostilities leads to a risk of another endless war.  But thanks for interjecting.

lastexitlondon

Talks must happen. 

static111

mrussel1 said:

Mickeyrat is dead right. You can't ask the Ukrainians to forget their history and the deaths of their relatives only a few generations ago. 

I agree that I doubt Ukraine can get Crimea back in any circumstances,  but they cannot be asked to give up the new oblasts that Russia invaded.

Thanks for your reply.  I completely understand that.  It is a shit situation and I hope the US really does have the best interests of the future of Ukraine behind everything they do and the support they give, but I am very skeptical.

static111

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Mickeyrat is dead right. You can't ask the Ukrainians to forget their history and the deaths of their relatives only a few generations ago. 

I agree that I doubt Ukraine can get Crimea back in any circumstances,  but they cannot be asked to give up the new oblasts that Russia invaded.

But where is Ukraine after Speaker Mccarthy turns off the money spigot?

As much as WE love to dream we can negotiate away the putin problem,  negotiating with him is pointless,  as he is not trustworthy 

And putin knows that American voters are about to hand him a huge assist.

This is another good point that is to be considered.  What happens if the republicans stop funding Ukraine?  If they don't have further arms and can't negotiate where does that leave them? 

Again if Putin can't be trusted and negotiated with why not a targeted strike.  We (NATO)  did it in Libya against Qaddafi in the name of freedom and as bad as I thought that was, if doing such a thing would avoid escalation and open war with the major powers of the world, it is hard to be against something like that in this case. 

static111

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

https://wapo.st/3WwKDAB 

  U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
By Missy Ryan, John Hudson and Paul Sonne
November 05, 2022 at 18:29 ET
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.

continues......

Thanks for the article.  Interesting to read about South Africa's views as well as those of the new President of Brazil and Modi from India.  I would like to see more stories about what other nations and world leaders think of this to help expand what this conflict means to the globe.  It is pretty easy for me to get stuck in what this means for the west and USA in general, but we are only a minority of the global population and our influence can be outsized at times.

josevolution

Maybe Trumpolinni in 24 can bring a stop to this conflict since he’s the best negotiator ever! 

mickeyrat

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

https://wapo.st/3WwKDAB 

  U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
By Missy Ryan, John Hudson and Paul Sonne
November 05, 2022 at 18:29 ET
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.

continues......

Thanks for the article.  Interesting to read about South Africa's views as well as those of the new President of Brazil and Modi from India.  I would like to see more stories about what other nations and world leaders think of this to help expand what this conflict means to the globe.  It is pretty easy for me to get stuck in what this means for the west and USA in general, but we are only a minority of the global population and our influence can be outsized at times.

would suggest BBC for that coverage. would give a more objective view on that and other things of U.S. involvement. Less rah rah etc....

static111

mickeyrat said:

static111 said:

mickeyrat said:

gift article...

https://wapo.st/3WwKDAB 

  U.S. privately asks Ukraine to show it’s open to negotiate with Russia
By Missy Ryan, John Hudson and Paul Sonne
November 05, 2022 at 18:29 ET
The Biden administration is privately encouraging Ukraine’s leaders to signal an openness to negotiate with Russia and drop their public refusal to engage in peace talks unless President Vladimir Putin is removed from power, according to people familiar with the discussions.
The request by American officials is not aimed at pushing Ukraine to the negotiating table, these people said. Rather, they called it a calculated attempt to ensure the government in Kyiv maintains the support of other nations facing constituencies wary of fueling a war for many years to come.
The discussions illustrate how complex the Biden administration’s position on Ukraine has become, as U.S. officials publicly vow to support Kyiv with massive sums of aid “for as long as it takes” while hoping for a resolution to the conflict that over the past eight months has taken a punishing toll on the world economy and triggered fears of nuclear war.
While U.S. officials share their Ukrainian counterparts’ assessment that Putin, for now, isn’t serious about negotiations, they acknowledge that President Volodymyr Zelensky’s ban on talks with him has generated concern in parts of Europe, Africa and Latin America, where the war’s disruptive effects on the availability and cost of food and fuel are felt most sharply.
“Ukraine fatigue is a real thing for some of our partners,” said one U.S. official who, like others interviewed for this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss sensitive conversations between Washington and Kyiv.

continues......

Thanks for the article.  Interesting to read about South Africa's views as well as those of the new President of Brazil and Modi from India.  I would like to see more stories about what other nations and world leaders think of this to help expand what this conflict means to the globe.  It is pretty easy for me to get stuck in what this means for the west and USA in general, but we are only a minority of the global population and our influence can be outsized at times.

would suggest BBC for that coverage. would give a more objective view on that and other things of U.S. involvement. Less rah rah etc....

Yeah I definitely need less bias in my news.  The more biased towards me the more worked up I get and the more biased towards the empire the more worked up I get.  

Lerxst1992

static111 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Mickeyrat is dead right. You can't ask the Ukrainians to forget their history and the deaths of their relatives only a few generations ago. 

I agree that I doubt Ukraine can get Crimea back in any circumstances,  but they cannot be asked to give up the new oblasts that Russia invaded.

But where is Ukraine after Speaker Mccarthy turns off the money spigot?

As much as WE love to dream we can negotiate away the putin problem,  negotiating with him is pointless,  as he is not trustworthy 

And putin knows that American voters are about to hand him a huge assist.

This is another good point that is to be considered.  What happens if the republicans stop funding Ukraine?  If they don't have further arms and can't negotiate where does that leave them? 

Again if Putin can't be trusted and negotiated with why not a targeted strike.  We (NATO)  did it in Libya against Qaddafi in the name of freedom and as bad as I thought that was, if doing such a thing would avoid escalation and open war with the major powers of the world, it is hard to be against something like that in this case. 

Targeted strike against Russia? If so, That will probably not work, as Putin has shown he is an eye for an eye dude. So unless we want missies aimed at us, no escalation.

The problem with negotiations is we’d be telling an ally to give away land to its ruthless neighbor. And wouldn’t this just give Putin incentive to target the Baltics?

By splitting republicans from historical American norms with their anticipated Ukraine funding cuts, Putins work in supporting the gop the past six years is paying dividends. Yes there was collusion and yes it’s worked. Just ask Reagan’s legacy. It’d be incredible if one of the occasional ATM right wing temporary visitors were aware of this. TJ? KP? Role?

Halifax2TheMax

Lerxst1992 said:

static111 said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mrussel1 said:

Mickeyrat is dead right. You can't ask the Ukrainians to forget their history and the deaths of their relatives only a few generations ago. 

I agree that I doubt Ukraine can get Crimea back in any circumstances,  but they cannot be asked to give up the new oblasts that Russia invaded.

But where is Ukraine after Speaker Mccarthy turns off the money spigot?

As much as WE love to dream we can negotiate away the putin problem,  negotiating with him is pointless,  as he is not trustworthy 

And putin knows that American voters are about to hand him a huge assist.

This is another good point that is to be considered.  What happens if the republicans stop funding Ukraine?  If they don't have further arms and can't negotiate where does that leave them? 

Again if Putin can't be trusted and negotiated with why not a targeted strike.  We (NATO)  did it in Libya against Qaddafi in the name of freedom and as bad as I thought that was, if doing such a thing would avoid escalation and open war with the major powers of the world, it is hard to be against something like that in this case. 

Targeted strike against Russia? If so, That will probably not work, as Putin has shown he is an eye for an eye dude. So unless we want missies aimed at us, no escalation.

The problem with negotiations is we’d be telling an ally to give away land to its ruthless neighbor. And wouldn’t this just give Putin incentive to target the Baltics?

By splitting republicans from historical American norms with their anticipated Ukraine funding cuts, Putins work in supporting the gop the past six years is paying dividends. Yes there was collusion and yes it’s worked. Just ask Reagan’s legacy. It’d be incredible if one of the occasional ATM right wing temporary visitors were aware of this. TJ? KP? Role?

Speaking of collusion. And delusion.

Russian oligarch Yevgeny Prigozhin appears to admit to US election interference

Yevgeny Prigozhin, a Kremlin-linked oligarch known as “Vladimir Putin’s chef,” appeared to admit to Russian interference in US elections in a Telegram post on Monday.

Prigozhin said that Russia has interfered, is interfering and will continue to interfere in the US democratic process, in response to a journalist’s question about Russia potentially meddling in US congressional elections on Tuesday.

“I will answer you very subtly, and delicately and I apologize, I will allow a certain ambiguity. Gentlemen, we interfered, we interfere and we will interfere,” Prigozhin said.

“Carefully, precisely, surgically and in our own way, as we know how. During our pinpoint operations, we will remove both kidneys and the liver at once,” he added. 

Prigozhin has no post in the Russian government, but his statement appeared to be the first admission of a high-level Russian campaign to interfere in US elections from someone close to the Kremlin.

Prigozhin is reportedly one of Putin’s trusted confidants – so close that the Russian press dubbed him the “chef” to the Russian President after he began catering events for the Kremlin. Prigozhin subsequently won lucrative catering contracts for schools and Russia’s armed forces, and by 2010 he was a Kremlin insider with a growing commercial empire.

https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/07/europe/yevgeny-prigozhin-russia-us-election-meddling-intl/index.html

Halifax2TheMax

But of course we all know that social media never influenced anyone to do anything. Like eat Tide pods.