ANONYMOUS - OUR VOICE

Washington Post Suggests Zelensky “Fight is Here” Quote Was Never Said

The Washington Post investigated the veracity of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky responding to a U.S. offer to evacuate him with the words, “The fight is here; I need ammunition, not a ride,” and found no evidence to confirm he ever made the statement.
The newspaper could only <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2022/03/06/zelenskys-famous-quote-need-ammo-not-ride-not-easily-confirmed/">find</a> a single source for the quote, one anonymous “senior American intelligence official” who fed it to the Associated Press.
Noting how the quote appeared in hundreds of news sources and was repeatedly played on television broadcasts, the WaPo concludes, “The only evidence for this line is an unnamed U.S. official. It has not been confirmed by either the U.S. government or Zelensky’s office.”
“Administration officials expressed confusion about the claim to The Fact Checker — they deny Zelensky was asked to leave Kyiv by the U.S. government — and said they do not know what call the AP is citing.”
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true" readability="8.4705882352941">
“I need ammo, not a ride”, may well go in the annals of history, as one of the greatest war-time quotes! <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Zelensky?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Zelensky</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Ukraine?src=hash&ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Ukraine</a> <a href="https://t.co/98uK5c5HH7">pic.twitter.com/98uK5c5HH7</a>
— Arsen Ostrovsky (@Ostrov_A) <a href="https://twitter.com/Ostrov_A/status/1497834691340247042?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 27, 2022</a>
</blockquote>
Serhiy Nykyforov, Zelensky’s press secretary, also said that he personally did not hear Zelensky utter the remarks.
<div class="txC1mxn3"><a href="https://www.infowarsstore.com/specials-clearance/top-selling-products-sale?ims=nhapy&utm_campaign=topsellingproducts&utm_source=Infowars+Hero&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=topsellingproductshero" target="_blank"><img src="https://api.directus.libertycdn.com/uploads/_/originals/TSP-hero-385-1.jpg" /></a></div>
It clearly appears that the Zelensky quote was invented to bolster the narrative that the Ukrainian president was ready to fight alongside his soldiers.
“The purpose of all these lies were to con the West into World War III and push Ukrainians to sacrifice their lives in defense of NATO expansionism and the Zelensky regime,” <a href="http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=62941">claims</a> Chris Menahan.
As we have previously highlighted, in just the space of the last 10 days, there have been numerous major incidents that were either grossly exaggerated or completely fabricated.
These include the ‘Ghost of Kiev’ myth, the Snake Island massacre hoax, inaccurately dated photographs of Zelensky wearing combat gear, the ‘attack’ on a Holocaust memorial that never happened, in addition to dubious claims about an attack on a nuclear plant.
[embedded content]
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT!
In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
I need you to sign up for my free newsletter <a href="http://summit.news/newsletter">here</a>.
Support my sponsor – <a href="https://bit.ly/TURBOFORCE">Turbo Force</a> – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Get early access, exclusive content and behinds the scenes stuff by following me on <a href="https://pauljosephwatson.locals.com/">Locals</a>.
———————————————————————————————————————
 
 
source <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/washington-post-suggests-zelensky-fight-is-here-quote-was-never-said">https://www.infowars.com/posts/washington-post-suggests-zelensky-fight-is-here-quote-was-never-said</a>

news Washington Post Suggests Zelensky “Fight is Here” Quote Was Never Said

The Washington Post investigated the veracity of Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky responding to a U.S. offer to evacuate him with the ...

Video: Rand Paul Slams “Reckless” Lindsey Graham For Calling For Putin’s Head

Senator Rand Paul has labelled Lindsey Graham’s call for Vladimir Putin to be assassinated as “reckless,” warning that such rhetoric “inflames the situation.”
Appearing on a podcast Friday, Paul was asked about <a href="https://summit.news/2022/03/04/ted-cruz-lambasts-graham-for-calling-for-putins-assassination/">Graham’s comments</a> last week when he questioned if there is “a Brutus in Russia?”who can “do the world a great service” by killing Putin.
“I think if you’re worried about your adversary being irrational, saying things like you’re going to assassinate him would actually make things worse,” Paul urged.
“It’s actually against the U.S. law,” to make such calls, Paul continued.
“U.S. law for a long time has been that we don’t assassinate civilian leaders of other governments,” the Senator added.
“And so, no, just wrong-headed on every notion,” Paul empathised, adding “I think people in elected offices need to realize that their words actually have consequences, and they should actually be careful with what they say.”
Watch:
Paul’s comments come after Ted Cruz labeled Graham’s call “an exceptionally bad idea”:
<div class="covZCh91"><a href="https://www.infowarsstore.com/specials-clearance/top-selling-products-sale?ims=nhapy&utm_campaign=topsellingproducts&utm_source=Infowars+Hero&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=topsellingproductshero" target="_blank"><img src="https://api.directus.libertycdn.com/uploads/_/originals/TSP-hero-385-1.jpg" /></a></div>
<figure class="wp-block-embed-twitter wp-block-embed is-type-rich is-provider-twitter">
<div class="wp-block-embed__wrapper" readability="7.4375">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true" readability="8.75">
This is an exceptionally bad idea.
Use massive economic sanctions; BOYCOTT Russian oil & gas; and provide military aid so the Ukrainians can defend themselves.
But we should not be calling for the assassination of heads of state. <a href="https://t.co/crPGHw9xyJ">https://t.co/crPGHw9xyJ</a>
— Ted Cruz (@tedcruz) <a href="https://twitter.com/tedcruz/status/1499615452934414340?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">March 4, 2022</a></blockquote>
</div>
</figure>
———————————————————————————————————————
ALERT! In the age of mass Silicon Valley censorship It is crucial that we stay in touch.
We need you to sign up for our free newsletter <a href="http://summit.news/newsletter">here</a>.
Support our sponsor – <a href="https://bit.ly/TURBOFORCE">Turbo Force</a> – a supercharged boost of clean energy without the comedown.
Also, we urgently need your financial support <a href="https://www.subscribestar.com/paul-joseph-watson">here</a>. ———————————————————————————————————————
 
 
source <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-rand-paul-slams-reckless-lindsey-graham-for-calling-for-putins-head">https://www.infowars.com/posts/video-rand-paul-slams-reckless-lindsey-graham-for-calling-for-putins-head</a>

news Video: Rand Paul Slams “Reckless” Lindsey Graham For Calling For Putin’s Head

Senator Rand Paul has labelled Lindsey Graham’s call for Vladimir Putin to be assassinated as “reckless,” warning that such rhetoric “inflam...

An expert on the dismal state of nuclear treaties

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/gI1VlDimitF6PgfvJhi-zv32_Fw=/0x340:4824x2866/fit-in/1200x630/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/23293334/1238753118.jpg" /></div>
Europe’s <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/2/23/22948534/russia-ukraine-war-putin-explosions-invasion-explained">first major war</a> in decades is bringing with it renewed concerns about the <a href="https://www.vox.com/22951004/nuclear-weapons-russia-ukraine-war-putin">possibility of nuclear conflict</a>. Announcing the invasion of Ukraine last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin warned that countries that try “to stand in our way ... must know that Russia will respond immediately, and the consequences will be such as you have never seen in your entire history”; just days afterward, he raised Russia’s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/27/us/politics/putin-nuclear-alert-biden-deescalation.html">nuclear readiness</a> and put nuclear troops on high alert, evoking Cold War comparisons.
There’s little reason, as things stand, to think things could spiral into nuclear war, but as one expert <a href="https://www.vox.com/22951004/nuclear-weapons-russia-ukraine-war-putin">told Vox’s Neel Dhanesha</a> at the beginning of the invasion, “I’m more worried than I was a week ago.”
Beyond the immediate worry, though, Putin’s saber-rattling is a potent reminder about the state of international arms control, which has made little headway — when not <a href="https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/2/20750158/inf-treaty-trump-russia-withdraw">actively backsliding</a> — in recent decades.
“I think the scope of it matters,” Joshua Pollack, a <a href="https://nonproliferation.org/experts/joshua-pollack/">senior research associate</a> with the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, said of future arms control agreements. “I really think it is not global, I really think it is regional. It is the Europeans above all, because they can see that, once again, they are the ones whose countries would be the battlefields.”
Vox spoke with Pollack, who is also an editor for the journal Nonproliferation Review, about the history of arms control and what the future of the nuclear-armed world could look like.
The conversation, edited for length and clarity, is below.
<hr class="p-entry-hr" />
<h4>Ellen Ioanes</h4>
I wanted to start by talking about how diplomacy has gone around new nuclear proliferation or nonproliferation, in the past decade? Because it seems like there’s been some efforts, but certainly some treaties have expired. And so where are we with that now?
<h4>Joshua Pollack</h4>
We’ve seen a real hardening of the partisan divide in this country over this question, to back it up a little bit. Before the decade mark, I would point to really the start of the divergence being in the 1990s. There was a general, if not unanimous, support for the START treaty, which was the first really big US-Soviet, and then US-Russian, arms control treaty that actually reduced numbers of nuclear weapons that could reach each other’s country — strategic weapons, as we call them. That one entered into force in 1994 — it was finalized mostly during the [first] Bush administration, and took effect under Clinton. But by that time, the cracks were starting to build and Republicans were starting to believe that in the post-Cold War world, we were a sole superpower and didn’t have to accept any restraints. So, there was some hard bargaining over the Chemical Weapons Convention that finalized around then, banning chemical weapons and pledging their complete destruction.
The head of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Jesse Helms, didn’t want to let the treaty out of committee, even though the United States had no interest in having chemical weapons anymore, and could only benefit from the treaty. He got the Clinton administration to agree to dismantle the semi-independent Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and fold its functions into the rest of the State Department. And that was the price for getting a vote, which did lead to the adoption of the Chemical Weapons Convention. Then the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty was due to come up for ratification, and the Republicans almost to a man voted against it. It had become a partisan issue. It didn’t matter that this had been sought by presidents of both parties going back decades. They had adopted a different view on the nature of American power and the nature of our strengths and believed that any commitment, any constraint — although we have no intention of testing nuclear weapons again — was illegitimate ipso facto, and it was a real low moment.
When the [second] Bush administration came in, they actually used the withdrawal provision to get the country out of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty that had been in place since 1972. That limited what kind of missile defenses both sides could deploy. [The administration] didn’t want to see any limits at all anymore. And ironically, to this day, we have not deployed defenses that are substantially in excess of those limits. In fact, I think with very slight modifications to the treaty — deployment locations, things like that — we could still be inside it. But the point was more to get rid of the treaties, in my view, than it was to actually deploy a working defense.
And the [second] Bush administration also pulled us out of an understanding which the North Koreans called the Agreed Framework. And when the Trump administration came in, we saw the same thing — [Trump] pulled us out of the <a href="https://www.vox.com/world/2019/8/2/20750158/inf-treaty-trump-russia-withdraw">Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty</a>, which barred the deployment of land-based missiles in Europe beyond a certain range — really, anywhere in the world by the US or Russia, but the point was to keep certain missiles out of Europe. And that turn, I think, has contributed to the present crisis in some ways, although it’s hard to say exactly how much.
The Russians are very upset about the idea that the United States could be deploying previously prohibited missiles into countries that had been inside the Warsaw Pact, or perhaps someday, even [countries that had been] inside the Soviet Union. That has been an issue that has emerged in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s rhetoric. In fact, the State Department, its counteroffer to Russian demands, was to play up that angle and say, “We’re open to talks on reaching some understanding about what weapons can and cannot be deployed in Europe.” [That] was consistent with demands that the Russians had made earlier, but it’s very hard to tell if there’s any real interest in that in Moscow.
<h4>Ellen Ioanes</h4>
And so is there a political framework now to change? Or is there the possibility of changing the way that political process happens, or that diplomatic process happens, in order to protect against the possibility that there will be that kind of Trumpian or Bushian desire to pull us out of these treaties [in the future]?
<h4>Joshua Pollack</h4>
I think, other than having a Democratic president, no. I mentioned that the Senate hasn’t ratified the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. But there is an understanding between countries that once the treaty is signed, and before it is ratified, none of the signatories will do anything to violate its purposes. In other words, while all of its provisions may not come into play, and you may not have inspectors visiting certain countries or so on, you cannot take the actual actions that the treaty prohibits. So you can’t conduct nuclear tests that would violate the the purposes of the treaty until [it enters into force]. You can’t exercise a provision of a treaty that’s not enforced, so the supreme national interest clause is not available for use. There’s no ripcord to pull.
The CTBT [<a href="https://www.un.org/disarmament/wmd/nuclear/ctbt/">Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty</a>] is in this weird limbo where it has a long list of countries that have to ratify it or accede to it in order for it to come into force; that includes the United States, China, Iran, North Korea, and others. There’s a small handful of holdouts, but there are just a lot of political obstacles to making that happen. There’s even an international organization that exists to oversee the treaty. And they actually do have real work to do because they established a global network of sensors to detect nuclear tests, right?
They’re just kind of in limbo, working, but not all provisions of the treaty are in place. And that kind of works in a funny way. There’s no credible allegation that anyone is violating the treaty; there are persistent allegations from the United States that Russia or China interpret it differently and are willing to conduct some very small-scale experiments that violate how the United States interprets it. But no one has actually ever presented any evidence to that effect — it’s just the sort of rampant speculation that builds on itself. So this might be a way for arms control to survive this dry spell, I think — we negotiate treaties. And then we can sign them and obligate ourselves to them. But you actually can’t get out until you get all the way in.
It’s a terrible way of doing things. But if the Republicans are going to tear up every functioning treaty at the first opportunity now, it might be a way to get around that; it does limit what you can do, because it means that until a treaty formally enters into force, some of its provisions, like the specifics of inspections and so forth, just won’t function. But if you have other ways of conducting verification, the principle that you do nothing contrary to the purposes of the treaty could actually get you a long way.
<h4>Ellen Ioanes</h4>
I wonder if now, especially given the threat we might be seeing from Russia as well as, in a more positive light, the <a href="https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/3/5/iran-iaea-hold-talks-as-nuclear-negotiations-near-finish-line">progress on the Iran deal</a> — that could mean that there is appetite once again, on more of an international scale to try and deal with arms control in a real, sincere way.
<h4>Joshua Pollack</h4>
There’s certainly an appetite in Europe. The Germans are putting a lot of resources into it. They’re funding a lot of new think tank activities. I think it’s really quite telling that IISS [International Institute for Strategic Studies] — it’s a think tank based in London that has had a Washington office, among other things, for many years. They were established to deal with some of these military and security issues, especially weapons, but not exclusively. Their nonproliferation program is no longer based in London or DC. It’s based in Berlin now, because the German government was willing to put up some money to establish a new office for them there. And they decided that’s where they may go.
[And] there’s a newly expanded center on these things in Hamburg. We’ve just seen a lot of investment in Germany in particular, but I’m also seeing, you know, there’s a growing center on these issues at the University of Oslo. Norwegians are getting into it. The Norwegians were the original supporters of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which entered into effect last year. So a very anti-nuclear treaty that none of the countries that actually have the bomb are willing to go near, but I think it expresses the impatience of many other countries with those countries over their refusal to get serious about arms reduction, disarmament.
The Norwegians in the end did not join that treaty — the more conservative government came in, and they backed away from their support for that endeavor. But we are seeing in general a resurgence in European interest, and I think that will only increase in view of current events.
<h4>Ellen Ioanes</h4>
So given that, we might be seeing the beginning of a little bit more of a global appetite to deal with this and a real impetus to do it. What would it take to decommission nuclear weapons on a large scale, not just strategic but tactical?
<h4>Joshua Pollack</h4>
It’s been done before; the implementation of the INF Treaty involved the disposal of a large category of nuclear missiles. In fact, if you go to the Air and Space Museum downtown [in DC], you can see a couple of missiles there commemorating the INF Treaty, one American and one Soviet. They’re not actual missiles, just training models. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the United States got involved in what was called the Cooperative Threat Reduction program, where we sent a lot of experts and provided a lot of money to places like Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus, and Kazakhstan and the other post-Soviet republics, to help them with securing nuclear forces and disposing of a lot of outdated missiles, even a couple of missile submarines.
But in recent years, Putin has wound down those sorts of activities, even though it was free money. It was sort of humiliating, I think, for him to have the Americans in the Russian missile and nuclear complexes — well, missile, certainly, I don’t know about nuclear — poking around and overseeing the cutting up of old missiles. It just did not rub him the right way. Of course, even before that, the Bush administration nearly ended those activities. Because Don Rumsfeld and Condi Rice didn’t see why we should pay for any of that, even though it involves missiles that are aimed at our country. It was shocking to some of us that they would talk that way. Nevertheless, it did survive that moment; it was Putin who in the end closed it all down. But it served its purpose.
So there is experience with that. But I think the scope of it matters. You talked about global interest. I really think it is not global, I really think it is regional. It is the Europeans above all, because they can see that, once again, they are the ones whose countries would be the battlefields. Even though there are barely any NATO nuclear weapons left in Europe, just a couple hundred on a handful of bases. Not anything remotely like it was during the Cold War when it was well over 100 sites, and thousands of weapons. Now, it’s maybe 200 weapons.
Ellen Ioanes
Some of them, like the ones in Turkey, they don’t even have bombers to use them. They’re just kind of sitting there.
Joshua Pollack
Right, they are symbolic of a commitment that, in many ways, is past its expiration date. It’s just politically difficult to remove this last remnant of what was once called tactical or theater nuclear weapons in Europe. Ever since the big, anti-nuclear protests of the 1980s, NATO governments are not really wanting to talk about where they are deployed and when they would be used. But on the other hand, they also don’t want to change anything that might imply a shift, or diminishment of American commitment, that would bring the topic back into the public view. They just don’t like to explain their positions on these issues to their publics, who don’t want to talk about it anymore.
So change is really not high on anyone’s agenda. The last big change we had was in the first Bush administration, when most of the weapons in Europe were removed, and all the weapons were taken off attack submarines and surface ships. Basically, our current arrangement was established. So we’ve only seen marginal changes since then. If there was to be a revival in Europe, I would suggest that it would have to do with something along the lines of a revival of the INF treaty, but perhaps on a multilateral basis.
The INF treaty, or Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces [Treaty] — actually was not about nuclear forces per se, it was about missiles regardless of what they carried. Today, now that missiles are much more accurate, conventional missiles are a much bigger problem than they used to be. So the precise conventional missiles that are in the hands of not only the United States and Russia, but many other European countries, countries in Western Europe — this is a problem for the Russians. The Finns, who are right next to St. Petersburg, have long-range, air-launched cruise missiles from the United States. The Poles have the same missiles; the Germans and the Swedes have built their own versions. This is an uncomfortable situation for the Russians, increasingly. And I think that when, if cooler heads prevail, once this episode is over — it may take awhile — there’s reason to think that there could be interest in a multilateral understanding.
In East Asia, we just don’t see the same phenomenon. The South Korean public, for example, is increasingly enamored of the idea of returning US nuclear weapons to South Korea, because they also left at the end of the Cold War. And the former Japanese prime minister, [Shinzo] Abe, keeps on raising the idea of bringing American nuclear weapons into Japan, which is something the present prime minister, [Fumio] Kishida, who is from Hiroshima, is absolutely opposed to, and would be against long-standing practice in Japan.
But what we see is, in that part of the world, I think things are moving in the opposite direction. There’s sort of a fascination with nuclear weapons, because of the North Koreans, because of the Chinese build-up, even — there’s just this feeling that, “Oh, we can’t let them get away with this, we have to counter it somehow.”
But that’s not what nuclear weapons do. They don’t effectively counter other nuclear weapons. It’s not like they’re planes or tanks. They don’t fight each other on the border and keep an invading army out. They’re useful for breaking deep into someone else’s country and there’s really no complete defense against them, except for the threat of retaliation. So it’s just a very different mindset, and one that I think many people have never fully internalized. Thinking about nuclear weapons, there’s a tendency to treat them as if they were just big, conventional weapons, which they’re not.
 
 
source <a href="https://www.vox.com/2022/3/6/22964312/russia-putin-nuclear-disarmament-nonproliferation-interview">https://www.vox.com/2022/3/6/22964312/russia-putin-nuclear-disarmament-nonproliferation-interview</a>

vox An expert on the dismal state of nuclear treaties

Europe’s first major war in decades is bringing with it renewed concerns about the possibility of nuclear conflict . Announcing the invasi...

Deteriorating Joe Biden Announces Putin ‘Invading Russia For First Time Since WWII’ — Sunday Night Live

<div><img class="ff-og-image-inserted" src="https://api-assets.infowars.com/2022/03/JOEBIDEN2I4786789.jpg" /></div>
Owen Shroyer breaks down Joe Biden declining cognitive capabilities as he mistakenly accuses Vladimir Putin of invading his own country. He’ll also discuss the massive coverup taking place in the media as vaccine injury data becomes public.
<a rel="noreferrer noopener" target="_blank" href="https://www.infowarsstore.com/survival-shield-x-3-1-oz?ims=knrrh&utm_campaign=x3banned&utm_source=banned.video&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=x3banned">Save 50% on Survival Shield X-3</a> and discover the power of activated tri-iodine today!
 
 
source <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/deteriorating-joe-biden-announces-putin-invading-russia-for-first-time-since-wwii-sunday-night-live">https://www.infowars.com/posts/deteriorating-joe-biden-announces-putin-invading-russia-for-first-time-since-wwii-sunday-night-live</a>

news Deteriorating Joe Biden Announces Putin ‘Invading Russia For First Time Since WWII’ — Sunday Night Live

Owen Shroyer breaks down Joe Biden declining cognitive capabilities as he mistakenly accuses Vladimir Putin of invading his own country. He...

Report: Ukraine Paying Civilians To Create War Propaganda To Blame on Russian Aggression

Text messages and bulletins in Russian circulating social media allegedly show an effort by the Ukrainian government to recruit citizens to stage war propaganda to blame on Russian forces.
An account on alternative social media website Mastodon by a podcaster named Sir Gene Duke of TX reveals several flyers and text threads calling on citizens to start fires and film them in specific locations to then blame on Russian aggression.
“Ukrainian civilians getting texts offering to pay 10,000 [Ukrainian Hryvnia, equal to $329 USD] to film fires at specified locations. This of course comes to US propaganda as videos of Russian aggression,” Duke of TX <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://noagendasocial.com/@Genen/107907016008569368" target="_blank">claimed</a> in a Saturday post.
“In fact, these are staged videos shot by paid Ukrainians. This is SO brilliant! They are paying random people to create propaganda that looks like its not professionally produced! Ukraine/CIA is totally winning the PR/Propaganda war!” he added.
<figure class="wp-block-image size-large"><img alt="" class="wp-image-164289" sizes="(max-width: 1012px) 100vw, 1012px" src="https://api-assets.infowars.com/2022/03/image-1012x1024.png" srcset="https://api-assets.infowars.com/2022/03/image-296x300.png 296w, https://api-assets.infowars.com/2022/03/image-768x777.png 768w, https://api-assets.infowars.com/2022/03/image-1012x1024.png 1012w" /></figure>
Infowars has NOT been able to verify the authenticity of these flyers and bulletins. However, translations will be provided below for you to make your own determination.
The following flyer details in Russian (the most widely spoken language in Ukraine) a campaign to receive compensation for staging war propaganda.
“IMPORTANT INFORMATION: Greetings friend! I am calling on you to stop this mayhem in the country and finish the war! Let’s together topple our government! Shoot video of these places under coordinates (53.271579, 34.410514) and receive a compensation of a large sum of money, or a heavy load of a product of choice. 🙌🙌🙌 Our store closed its doors specifically because of them.”
<figure class="wp-block-image"><img alt="" src="https://static.noagendasocial.com/media_attachments/files/107/907/000/216/452/940/original/52ccfada9df7c203.png" /></figure>
This is the translation of the following text exchange:
<div class="Kfqdrli9"><a href="https://www.infowarsstore.com/specials-clearance/top-selling-products-sale?ims=nhapy&utm_campaign=topsellingproducts&utm_source=Infowars+Hero&utm_medium=banner&utm_content=topsellingproductshero" target="_blank"><img src="https://api.directus.libertycdn.com/uploads/_/originals/TSP-hero-385-1.jpg" /></a></div>
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote" readability="17">
-I can offer a job that pays 10k
– how
– go to this site for the voice recording (name of site) (here you will record the following message: there is a bomb at the bus station at the address Sievers Street, Rostov-on-Don, I repeat, there is a bomb) You need to call the police! BUT FIRST RECORD THIS MESSAGE And you need to record this message on video or audio! You will be paid 10k rubles only after you can prove you made the phone call.
VoxWorker.com – voiceover of text online Online voiceover of text, word synthesizer in Russian. Online service of voiceover of text for male and female voices in Russian and English.
</blockquote>
<figure class="wp-block-image"><img alt="" src="https://static.noagendasocial.com/media_attachments/files/107/907/000/944/479/699/original/64249d6942e48e1d.png" /></figure>
A third text exchange says the following:
<blockquote class="wp-block-quote" readability="10">
-I have a job that pays 200K
-depends on what I need to do 😊
– you need to make Molotov Cocktail and throw it into the City Council into the building through a window and shoot this on video to prove that it’s the right building
</blockquote>
<figure class="wp-block-image"><img alt="" src="https://static.noagendasocial.com/media_attachments/files/107/907/002/238/101/614/original/64e74e6d3d04b1fe.png" /></figure>
Though the authenticity of these text exchanges aren’t verified, this report is nonetheless unsurprising given the confirmed instances of <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/ukraine-fact-fiction-war-propaganda/" target="_blank">propaganda</a> emanating from Ukraine over the last two weeks, such as the debunked Ghost of Kyiv and Snake Island stories.
In fact, U.S. mainstream corporate media has been <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.armytimes.com/off-duty/military-culture/2022/03/03/how-ukraine-is-winning-the-propaganda-war/" target="_blank">defending the use of wartime propaganda</a> to <a rel="noreferrer noopener" href="https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/44453/the-ghost-of-kyiv-is-the-mythical-hero-ukraine-needs-right-now" target="_blank">boost the morale</a> of the Ukrainian people and the West as Russia’s invasion into the country continues.
<hr class="wp-block-separator" />
Twitter: <a href="https://www.infowars.com/rss.xml" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">@WhiteIsTheFury</a> 
Gab: <a href="https://www.infowars.com/rss.xml" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">@WhiteIsTheFury</a> 
Minds: <a href="https://www.minds.com/whiteisthefury/" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">@WhiteIsTheFury</a> 
Gettr: <a href="https://www.gettr.com/user/whiteisthefury" rel="noopener noreferrer">@WhiteIsTheFury</a>
<a href="https://battleplan.news/watch?id=622262102122da4d45f75f72" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">Controlled Collapse: Fog of War Propaganda Seizes Global Communications</a>
 
 
source <a href="https://www.infowars.com/posts/report-ukraine-paying-civilians-to-create-war-propaganda-to-blame-on-russian-aggression">https://www.infowars.com/posts/report-ukraine-paying-civilians-to-create-war-propaganda-to-blame-on-russian-aggression</a>

news Report: Ukraine Paying Civilians To Create War Propaganda To Blame on Russian Aggression

Text messages and bulletins in Russian circulating social media allegedly show an effort by the Ukrainian government to recruit citizens to ...

Sunday Live: Globalists Want To Launch WWIII To Distract From Bombshell COVID Vaccine Revelations

news Sunday Live: Globalists Want To Launch WWIII To Distract From Bombshell COVID Vaccine Revelations

HHS documents reveal Biden administration paid billions to numerous media outlets to cover up vaccine injury data -- corruption and fraud a...