Russia's invasion of Ukraine: Part 5

Over here in Putinistan, the state-run media is having a field day, gleefully reporting that 12 out of the 16 federal states have officially run out of both the capacity and the funds to take in refugees from Ukraine.
What a pathetic excuse for human beings... it’s honestly hard to believe 🤦

Jessica Peterson2 said:Over here in Putinistan, the state-run media is having a field day, gleefully reporting that 12 out of the 16 federal states have officially run out of both the capacity and the funds to take in refugees from Ukraine.
What a pathetic excuse for human beings... it’s honestly hard to believe 🤦

Federal states... which ones exactly?

Nancy Gomez26 said:Federal states... which ones exactly?

Germany has 16 federal states.
Given what was written before, I assume that's the answer.

Bjesomar_ said:How exactly did these NGOs hijack the construction process?

And who are these "NGOs" we're talking about? Is it the Church? HVIDRA?

https://www.cnn.com/news/us/...---501566.html
Here’s an example of a

the most likely scenario involves a system where liquefied gas is heated by cooling the ocean. This would require flushing the pipelines with chlorine—which could pollute the waters. The Italians have already dealt with this issue, and the environmental group Eko Kvarner claims a similar disaster could threaten Omišalj.

Jessica Peterson2 said:Over here in Putinistan, the state-run media is having a field day, gleefully reporting that 12 out of the 16 federal states have officially run out of both the capacity and the funds to take in refugees from Ukraine.
What a pathetic excuse for human beings... it’s honestly hard to believe 🤦

Where are they supposed to go then? Alaska?

James Phillips92 said:https://www.cnn.com/news/us/...---501566.html
Here’s an example of a

the most likely scenario involves a system where liquefied gas is heated by cooling the ocean. This would require flushing the pipelines with chlorine—which could pollute the waters. The Italians have already dealt with this issue, and the environmental group Eko Kvarner claims a similar disaster could threaten Omišalj.

I don't see anyone actually stopping anything in this article.
It just mentions some advocacy group warning about potential consequences.

Matthew Young35 said:I don't see anyone actually stopping anything in this article.
It just mentions some advocacy group warning about potential consequences.

Those groups "sound the alarm," journalists just pass it along, the public swallows it whole—and in the end, politicians get a free pass for doing absolutely nothing.

🙏🙏🙏

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/sta...CzqfzNob0rAAAA

The Russians would probably still be sitting at the negotiating table right now, except they’d just be arguing over how to wrap up the terms that Moscow already decided had to be met. 😵

hollowdriver13 said:🙏🙏🙏

https://twitter.com/DmitryOpines/sta...CzqfzNob0rAAAA

The Russians would probably still be sitting at the negotiating table right now, except they’d just be arguing over how to wrap up the terms that Moscow already decided had to be met. 😵

Quote : as the Press Secretary asserts, Russia is artfully positioning itself as "no one's antagonist." "At the end of the day, our country is more of a supporter of an international harmony based on mutual respect , Common benefit and a readiness to consider The concerns of One another," – believes the White House Press Secretary. In The West There operates a "crueller, more egoistical approach", said Mr. Press Secretary. "And if we go even further, across the ocean - there the approach is entirely cowboy: that might is right," he thinks.

Basically, they're just straight-up playing you.

Man, this is a total mindfuck...

The oxymoron of all oxymorons 🤣

Nancy Gomez26 said:Federal states... which ones exactly?

The federal states... 🙂
It doesn't seem like they just made this up out of thin air; rather, they are simply relaying news reported by the rnd.de portal, which is quoting a statement from an anonymous spokesperson at the federal Department of State.
https://www.rnd.de/politik/ukraine-f...Q2IFFXIQQ.html

James Phillips92 said:Those groups "sound the alarm," journalists just pass it along, the public swallows it whole—and in the end, politicians get a free pass for doing absolutely nothing.

Bravo!

Does anyone actually expect environmental groups to back new oil installations anywhere? That’s an objective ecological risk. It always has been, and it's built into the nature of the thing.

It's their job to sound the alarm, while the public and the government decide how much weight those warnings carry compared to other factors like the economy or national strategy.

I don't see anything controversial here, nor any secret agendas involving Merkel or George Soros.

bluemason3 said:Does anyone actually expect environmental groups to back new oil installations anywhere? That’s an objective ecological risk. It always has been, and it's built into the nature of the thing.

It's their job to sound the alarm, while the public and the government decide how much weight those warnings carry compared to other factors like the economy or national strategy.

I don't see anything controversial here, nor any secret agendas involving Merkel or George Soros.

There is definitely a "secret" agenda if you look at where these NGOs get their money.

I couldn't track down the 2017 financial report, but honestly, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. There isn't an environmental group in America that wouldn't protest those kinds of installations on their turf, so the funding source is pretty much irrelevant.

If they didn't speak up, that’s when things would actually start looking suspicious and make you wonder if there was some hidden agenda at play.

Think of it like a football team aiming for a win; they're just doing their job, whether they're backed by billionaires from Dubai, Moscow, or Berlin. It only becomes a problem if they start throwing the game.

bluemason3 said:I couldn't track down the 2017 financial report, but honestly, it doesn't matter where the money comes from. There isn't an environmental group in America that wouldn't protest those kinds of installations on their turf, so the funding source is pretty much irrelevant.

If they didn't speak up, that’s when things would actually start looking suspicious and make you wonder if there was some hidden agenda at play.

Think of it like a football team aiming for a win; they're just doing their job, whether they're backed by billionaires from Dubai, Moscow, or Berlin. It only becomes a problem if they start throwing the game.

It’s even worse when we’re the ones footing the bill.

James Phillips92 said:It’s even worse when we’re the ones footing the bill.

We probably are funding them to some extent. Most nonprofits pull from multiple streams, and I wouldn't be surprised if a chunk comes from specific local or federal grants, whether through direct funding or project-based work.
But without seeing the books, it's all just guesswork.

Seriously though... environmental groups are constantly pushing back against natural gas infrastructure projects.
But honestly, it feels a bit suspicious when people immediately start hunting for hidden agendas or pointing fingers at George Soros.

Besides, those organizations don't actually hold much sway. At this point, a random DVD from some basement dweller probably carries more influence than an eco-activist group.

We live in a world teeming with a thousand different competing interests—you’ve got private commercial ventures and the free market clashing with local community needs, national interests, and various layers of voters from the municipal level all the way up to federal. It's a landscape where the government might hand out the permits for massive infrastructure projects, but they don't actually pull the strings themselves. Honestly, for a lot of people, this level of complexity is just too much to wrap their heads around.

That's why there's always such an appeal to having a direct pact between two major leaders—say, Merkel/Putin—where everything stays crystal clear. If any ambiguities pop up, you just let someone like George Soros, a hiking club like Grönningen, or a recycling group like CFR handle the messy details. In fact, that's basically how RT operates, and it works incredibly well. You really only need to skim through a few pages of this discussion to see what I mean...

https://www.jeffsachs.org/newspaper-...yhzwxc5f72ancr

Look, we’re living through some seriously sketchy times, right? And honestly, if you ask me, instead of just following whatever Washington decides to do, European leaders really ought to be chasing after what actually matters—The true source of European security : not US hegemony. We need actual European security arrangements that respect The legitimate security interests of All European nations , certainly including Ukraine, while also keeping in mind that Russia isn't exactly thrilled about NATO pushing its way into the Black Sea. Europe should reflect on The fact that The non-enlargement of NATO and The implementation of The Minsk ii agreements would have averted this awful War in Ukraine. Seriously, at this point, if we want any hope for European and Global security, we've got to lean into diplomacy rather than just cranking up the military tension, don't you think?

Is Jeffrey Sachs just a total shill?