@TateTheTalisman As a Polish citizen – yes, absolutely worth it. Poland spent decades under Soviet domination. We know what Russian imperialism looks like up close, not from TV. Every euro that degrades Russia's military capacity is an investment in European security, not charity.
@TateTheTalisman YES, 1000 times YES
and we should help out Ukraine even more
While we are at it, put sex offend crypto scammers like you and your brother in a deep dark hole forever.
@DarializaforNY@ZohranKMamdani You’re a pro-russian scumbag.
You and your whole movement are responsible for the genocide of my people. You will be held accountable
@caitoz@hawks31cowboys You have been silent when russia launched its full scale invasion of Ukraine, bombs Ukrainian cities and civilians, but you cry like a bitch when Ukraine strikes back, shows a clear anti-Ukraine and pro russia bias. Curious, are you paid well or a free useful idiot?
Australia remains steadfast in our support for Ukraine and we are pleased to be providing an additional $100 million in assistance to Ukraine for vital military equipment.
We will make two additional $50 million contributions to the Prioritised Ukraine Requirements List (PURL) over 2026-27.
In partnership with NATO, Australia is supporting Ukraine to secure the critical military equipment and capabilities it needs to defend itself against Russia’s unjustified and unprovoked invasion.
Just hours after Russia began its full-scale invasion of Ukraine, Darializa Chevalier blamed the US for "bullying Russia" and accused Washington of stoking the war for profit. Copy-and-paste Russian talking points.
She's the Mamdani-backed challenger to Rep. Adriano Espaillat.
NY-13 congressional candidate @DarializaforNY has been silent on Ukraine while campaigning. Her website said she opposed all military aid until it was removed in February with no explanation.
❌Opposes military aid
❌Framed Russia as victim
❗️Future aid position unclear
@KyivIndependent Why are you whitewashing her russian bootlicking by framing her as just anti Zelensky... when she is a russian asset spreading russian disinfo?
Senator @RandPaul opposed any support for Ukraine since the start. He has not only voted against every aid package, but tired to tie up and delay assistance to Kyiv as long as possible. This tactic did not stop at aid. Rand Paul worked to stall sanctions against Russia as well.
Hypothetical question:
If a President of the USA is a secret Russian asset, what would he do to help Russia?
ChatGPT:
Interesting thought experiment—and a useful way to think about incentives and power. If someone in that position were secretly acting in another country’s interest, the key wouldn’t be dramatic, obvious betrayals. It would be subtle, deniable, and cumulative.
First, they’d likely undermine alliances quietly. The United States’ biggest strategic advantage is its network—especially NATO. So instead of openly pulling out, they might question its value, delay commitments, create distrust among members, or signal unreliability. Even small cracks weaken collective defense.
Second, they could shift foreign policy in ways that benefit Russia without looking extreme. That might mean softening sanctions, slowing military aid to countries Russia opposes (like Ukraine), or reframing conflicts to reduce U.S. involvement. None of that needs to look like “helping Russia”—just “putting America first.”
Third, damage internal cohesion. A divided country is less effective abroad. Amplifying polarization, discrediting institutions (courts, elections, intelligence agencies), or constantly creating internal crises reduces the ability of the U.S. to act strategically. That’s something adversaries historically benefit from.
Fourth, reshape leadership and bureaucracy. Appointing people who are inexperienced, loyal over competent, or sympathetic to certain narratives can gradually shift how decisions are made. Over time, that changes policy outcomes without needing explicit orders.
Fifth, control the narrative. Public opinion matters in democracies. Repeating talking points that align with Russian interests—questioning support for allies, portraying adversaries of Russia as corrupt or unworthy—can steer public sentiment in a favorable direction.
Finally, they’d avoid anything blatantly illegal or provable. The whole strategy would depend on plausible deniability. If it’s obvious, it fails.
The big picture: influence at that level isn’t about one shocking act—it’s about slowly tilting the system so that, over time, outcomes consistently benefit the other side.
Congressman @andybiggs4az has been a consistent voice against supporting Ukraine. Having voted against every single Ukraine aid package. Voted against sanctions. And wouldn't support legislation to share information on Russian war crimes with the International Criminal Court.
He’s proclaimed Donetsk and Luhansk Russian and the invasion and annexation of Crimea a “completely justifiable fucking act”.
He doubled down on this with “Crimea? Cry me a river. A Russian river.” It got even worse with…
17/20