peter

[peter @delegation418]

@BryceMLipscomb

[peter @delegation418]

@vick55top

[peter @delegation418]

@1860rm

[peter @delegation418]

https://t.co/08FCeR7lKf

[Jan j.,,,🇸🇰🇸🇰🇸🇰 @JanoJano1977]

Seagal: Ak by Putin nebral ohľad na civilistov, Ukrajina by padla za 3 mesiace

[peter @delegation418]

@DI313_ ukraina prehrava

[peter @delegation418]

@tomek525

[peter @delegation418]

@Pascal_Laurent_

[peter @delegation418]

https://t.co/XqEBv7UNOo AVE LONDON

[Rémi Philiponet 🇨🇵 @remi_philiponet]

Le sous-marin nucléaire russe BS-329 « Belgorod » se déploie avec à son bord six torpilles nucléaires Status 6 Poseidon, capables de provoquer des tsunamis d'une hauteur de 450 mètres !
La puissance de la torpille Poséidon est de 100 mégatonnes, 100 000 kilotonnes !
Hiroshima 15 kilotonnes.
Elle est capable de détruire la Grande-Bretagne ou le New-Jersey.

Les russophobes pathologiques pro-nazis-banderistes qui déclarent sur tous les tons et sur toutes les ondes que la Russie est l'ennemi N°1 de la France sont, tellement stupides, qu'ils sont incapables de percevoir la signification diplomatico-militaire de leurs paroles.
La France est un adversaire ou un rival stratégique de la Russie, comme l'Allemagne est une rivale économique de la France, mais la France ne peut pas déclarer officiellement haut et fort la Russie son ennemi et agir en conséquence.
Aucun dirigeant politique allié de l'Ukraine n'a utilisé, une seule fois en public, le terme "ennemi" pour désigner la Russie.
Parce que dans ce cas, la France se verrait dans l'obligation de lui déclarer la guerre.
Alors, l'espérance de vie de 650 millions d'Européns, de 340 millions d'Américains et des millions de turcs, de Canadiens, de Japonais, de Coréens du sud, d'Australiens, de Russes et de plusieurs milliards d'habitants des autres continents ne dépasserait pas quelques semaines.
Une centaine d'explosions de bombes thermonucléaires seraient suffisantes pour détruire la vie sur Terre.
Tous les experts le savent.

La Russie ne doit jamais être désignée comme un ennemi sous peine de disparition de l'humanité.

Conclusion : les véritables patriotes défenseurs des intérêts vitaux de la France sont les amis de la Russie.
Paradoxalement, les russophobes pathologiques enragés sont les ennemis de la France et de l'humanité.
Ils acceptent sans état d'âme l'idée de la disparition de la France si la Russie est détruite.
Ce sont des malades mentaux extrêmement dangereux !!!
Ils se sont familiarisés à l'idée de l'extermination mutuelle du moment que la population russe passe de vie à trépas.
Ils oublient que l'Occident global compte 1200 millions environ d'habitants contre 148 millions pour la Russie qui aurait 10 fois moins à perdre dans une guerre totale.
Les enjeux démographiques sont largement en faveur de la Russie peu peuplée.

La France possède ce triste privilège de compter de nombreux irresponsables parmi la crème de son élite russophobe nihiliste.
La haine pathologique bouillonnante des Nazis hitlériens allemands avait provoqué la destruction du IIIème Reich et de l'Europe.
La haine enragée des russophobes français est suicidaire.
Elle porte en elle un potentiel holocauste.

[peter @delegation418]

https://t.co/0Hl9v4VHSr

[peter @delegation418]

https://t.co/QVixKTpHpP

[peter @delegation418]

@denniksme

[peter @delegation418]

https://t.co/HXShGZgyjG

[𝐃𝐚𝐯𝐢𝐝 𝐙 🇷🇺🇮🇪 @SMO_VZ]

UKRAINE; The Illusion of an Easy Victory all came to Tears !

When the proxy forces of NATO, under the flag of Ukraine, launched their campaign against Russia, they did so with smiles of arrogant certainty.

Western capitals and the political class in Kiev spoke as if the outcome was already decided.

Superior technology, endless funding, and the full weight of the Atlantic alliance would, they believed, break Russia quickly and cleanly. The narrative was simple: a corrupt, isolated Russia would collapse under the pressure of sanctions and modern Western weapons.

That narrative has been destroyed by reality.

Russia did not collapse. It absorbed the full spectrum of NATO’s resources—ammunition, intelligence, training, financial aid measured in hundreds of billions of euros and dollars—and continued to fight.

The Ukrainian state that once presented itself as a vibrant democracy is now a landscape of ruined cities, emptied villages, and a generation of young men spent in attrition.

The human cost has been catastrophic, and for what? Territory that was never going to be held permanently, and a strategic position that has only weakened the very state that was supposed to be defended. The dead lie in the ground while the politicians who ordered the offensives continue to speak of “victory” from safer distances with stolen wealth sitting from Luxembourg to London to Liechstenstein to Politicans who arranged it all in NATO.

Two internal cancers accelerated Ukraine’s suicidal path. First, the elevation of the Azov formation and its ideological cousins. What began as a volunteer battalion with openly radical right-wing symbolism was integrated into the national military structure and treated as a symbol of resistance.

That decision imported an exclusionary, ethno-nationalist current into the war effort and poisoned any possibility of a broader political settlement.

It also handed Russia a ready-made propaganda weapon that it has used relentlessly and effectively.

Second, the systemic corruption that has long defined Ukrainian politics did not disappear under the pressure of war; it intensified. Tens of Billions of euros and dollars intended for defense, reconstruction, and soldier welfare have vanished into networks of patronage centered in the Rada and the higher ranks of the military.

Procurement scandals, inflated contracts, and outright theft became open secrets even among Ukraine’s Western sponsors. A state that cannot keep its own military solvent while asking its citizens to die is not a state that can win a protracted conflict against a peer adversary.

Russia, by contrast, treated the war as an existential contest from the beginning. It mobilized industry, accepted casualties, adapted tactics, and refused the Western expectation that economic pain would force political surrender.

The result is visible on the map and in the casualty figures. Ukraine’s demographic and material base has been hollowed out. Its infrastructure is degraded. Its political elite remains divided between those who still demand maximalist aims and those who quietly recognize that the original gamble has failed.

The original premise—that a NATO-backed Ukrainian army could defeat Russia with relative ease—was always a fantasy. It rested on the same underestimation of Russian resilience that has appeared in earlier generations. Russia was never going to lose a war fought on its own border against a force that, however heavily supplied, remained dependent on external will and external money. The ruins, the graves, and the unfinished projects paid for by Western taxpayers are the proof.

What remains is not a triumphant Ukraine, but a cautionary record of hubris, corruption, and ideological excess that turned a regional crisis into a national catastrophe.

Thank you NATO !

[peter @delegation418]

@CrimeanVoyager čo si ukrainci zvolily to maju kto seje vitr sklizi burku

[peter @delegation418]

@wartranslated 1:1

[peter @delegation418]

@KolikovaMaria povedal Vrah Krivočenka

[peter @delegation418]

@360tka_sk

[peter @delegation418]

@McFaul 1:1

[peter @delegation418]

@CharlieWar2ez

[peter @delegation418]

@CrimeanVoyager 1:1

[peter @delegation418]

@madgolub konečne začaly štrajkovať kde maju

[peter @delegation418]

@ChakhoyanAndrew