When Russian President Vladimir Putin declared at the Alaska summit that Russia would not have invaded Ukraine if Donald Trump had been U.S. president in 2022, the comment sent ripples through political discourse. Trump and his supporters seized it as proof of his strength – a leader so formidable that Putin wouldn’t dare challenge him. But this interpretation misses a darker possibility: Putin’s endorsement suggests not fear of Trump’s resolve, but confidence in his compliance. Far from a compliment, it’s a signal that Trump’s leadership might have handed Russia its goals without a shot fired.
The “strength” narrative is seductive. Trump has long claimed he could end the Ukraine war swiftly through sheer force of personality, a stance echoed by allies who contrast his supposed decisiveness with Biden’s perceived weakness. Social media posts and conservative outlets have amplified this, framing Putin’s words as evidence that Trump’s rapport with strongmen deterred aggression. After all, Putin himself tied the invasion’s absence to Trump’s presidency, even invoking the “stolen” 2020 election to bolster the point.
But let’s peel back the layers. Putin’s praise comes with a history that undercuts the tough-guy image. In 2022, as Russian tanks rolled into Ukraine, Trump called Putin’s tactics “genius” and “savvy,” words that hardly scream deterrence. His 2018 Helsinki summit performance – siding with Putin over U.S. intelligence on election interference – raised eyebrows, as did his 2019 attempt to leverage Ukraine’s aid for political favours. Putin’s own playbook adds context: In 2024, he claimed to prefer Biden and later Harris, calling them “predictable.” Analysts saw this as reverse psychology to boost Trump’s anti-establishment appeal. If Putin truly feared Trump, why endorse him now?
The answer lies in what Putin might gain from a compliant U.S. leader. A Trump presidency could have meant a weaker NATO, softened sanctions, or even tacit approval of Russian expansionism through backroom deals. Trump’s “America First” approach often prioritised transactional diplomacy over alliances, a stance that could let Russia dominate Ukraine without the costs of war. Historical precedent supports this: Putin annexed Crimea in 2014 under Obama without escalating to full invasion, exploiting perceived U.S. restraint. Under Trump, a similar dynamic might have unfolded – less deterrence, more acquiescence.
The Alaska summit itself offers clues. Despite Trump’s claims of deal-making prowess, no ceasefire emerged, suggesting Putin sees little need to concede when he can manipulate perceptions instead. His endorsement of Trump’s narrative isn’t about strength; it’s about a U.S. leader who might prioritise personal legacy over geopolitical stability. This isn’t hypothetical – Trump’s own rhetoric about slashing aid to Ukraine and pushing for quick resolutions aligns with Russia’s interest in a weakened, divided West.
Voters and policymakers should treat Putin’s words as a warning, not a badge of honour. A president who earns praise from an adversary like Russia risks being a pawn, not a power. As the Ukraine conflict grinds on, with millions displaced and global stability at stake, the U.S. must prioritise leaders who strengthen alliances and counter authoritarian ambitions – not those who might enable them for a handshake. Putin’s flattery isn’t about Trump’s strength; it’s about Russia’s opportunity. We’d be wise to listen carefully and question what such praise really means.
Dear reader, we need your support
Independent sites such as The AIMN provide a platform for public interest journalists. From its humble beginning in January 2013, The AIMN has grown into one of the most trusted and popular independent media organisations.
One of the reasons we have succeeded has been due to the support we receive from our readers through their financial contributions.
With increasing costs to maintain The AIMN, we need this continued support.
Your donation – large or small – to help with the running costs of this site will be greatly appreciated.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
Putin playing (and being very sarcastic as well) to The Donalds vanity, narcissism and stupidity.
Putin is a nasty piece of work. Ex-KGB so knows how to control dissent. Knows how to intimidate, instil fear, scare the shit out of people, that Trump doesn’t instinctively understand this is testament to his naivite. To think he could persuade Putin to do anything shows his fundamental stupidity. All the pomp and ceremony for a war criminal must surely have some of his supporters wondering about their dear leader’s sanity.
Well said Michael.
Anyone who takes comfort in the words and assurances of either Trump or Putin should realise they’re supporting the wrong side
The war supposedly between Russia and Ukraine is a proxy war waged by the West designed to weaken Russia.
The first step was to remove a Russia-friendly leader, and replace him with someone amenable to western pressure.
Then came the suppression of the Russian language and Church in the Russian speaking oblasts in the east, gifted to Russia by Kruschev in the 1950s.
The next betrayal was the promise to include Ukraine in NATO, despite previous assurances to Russia that this would not happen.
The West has ruthlessly used Ukraine for its own ends. However, the plan has backfired. Russia is winning, and the real loser is Ukraine, which has suffered enormous casualties.
Russia, on the other hand Has been strengthened in the process and now has a formidable military and a strong industrial base which produces armaments at an impressive rate.
Thank you, AC. Over my muesli this morning I said to Carol; “What if Putin’s comment was not about Trump being tough, but about him being weak and pliable?” It grew from there.
Yes Michael, Putin is well versed in using flattery of Trump to have Trump doubling down on his brown nosing and dangerous nonsense.
And I feel obliged to correct a few of the many falsehoods posted by Oauline Westwood
● There was no assurance given to Russia about NATO expansion.
There was a non binding verbal exchange with the Soviet Union. You should be aware that the Soviet Union was comprised of 15 countries, it isn’t simply “Russia”
Many of those countries have specifically sought to release NATO from that non binding verbal exchange because they sought to join NATO.
That is their right.
This point is a regurgitation of claims and misrepresentations made by Jeffrey Sachs and others.
Do you think Putin should be held to all the verbal exchanges of Yeltsin?
Do you think verbal exchanges can bind a future administration?
● The corollary of your claim about a proxy war is that Putin was manipulated by NATO into a war he didn’t want. May I ask whether you believe Putin is really that stupid?
The fact is that Putin ordered war before exhausting diplomatic measures.
● Your reference to the removal of former president Viktor Yanukovych ignores a range of facts, which I’m happy to detail if you require.
However the entire debacle is due to the hubris and arrogance of Yanukovych.
● During a war/invasion it happens that those seeking to align with the invader are monitored and restrained. You can blame Putin for causing this
Agree, and makes one wonder as to why the Democrats have not been describing Trump as ‘weak’?
Much of the Trump , GOP and RW MSM campaign was about pejorative messaging of Biden, Harris and the Dems being ‘weak’ on Israel and Russia?
Like the Dems have missed an open goal while Hamas incursion into Israel was manna from heaven for both Netanyahu and Trump’s GOP, to blame the centre… and help suppress Democrat vote.
Onshore we have a spurious anti-semitism campaign from the right, the same RW MSM and LNP which promote white Christian nationalist talking points…….
Of course Trump is weak. Like all bullies, he succumbs to someone tougher than himself. But let’s not forget the total background to all this, (and the fact that Putin wants a peace treaty, not this wonderful temporary ceasefire, which would enable this war to grind on, with American companies continue making $billions selling weapons for the Ukrainians to use)
And I thank Oauline Westwood for the reminder of the background reality that this is a proxy war, and continuation of the West’s unrelenting campaign to weaken Russia. And why does everyone complacently accept that it is OK to disregard a political agreement, the Minsk2 in 2014, supported by France, Germany, Russia and Ukraine, and unanimously approved by the U.N. Security Council in Resolution 2202 on February 17, 2015? The United States voted in favor of the resolution. After that, the Ukrainian government waged war for 8 years against the Donbass region, in complete contravention of that agreement, which was supposed to ensure the autonomy of the Donbass. Russia’s “special military operation” to support that agreement developed into the full-scale war. Yes, it can well be argued that this war is “illegal”.It can also be argued that the West, by completely ignoring Minsk and Ukraine’s 8 years of attacking Donbass, succeeded in provoking Putin into this war
Thank you for ignoring the facts I posted that demonstrate the paucity of the views of Oauline.
However I won’t return the compliment by ignoring your misrepresentation of the Minsk agreement.
Are you aware that the Minsk agreement required the separatists to-
● decommission and relinquish their heavy artillery
● stop accepting arms from Russia
● provide unobstructed access to humanitarian organisations
● provide open borders
They did none of this
The Biden family, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Victoria Nuland, Amb Geoffrey Pyatt, were all involved in promoting the Maidan coup, and organising weapons and funding transfers to Ukrainian Armed Forces and the various neo-Nazi militia during the conflict with the Ukrainian ethnic Russian separatists in the Donbass. These actions are consistent with similar actions by US agents and officials in many other conflicts around the world in the post-1945 period. In itself, this should also be plenty to support a serious and judicious inquiry into the root causes of the Russia-Ukraine (NATO) war. That it is not and that the analysis is sadly reduced to pseudo-psychological analyses of leaders’ intentions, often laced with hackneyed Russophobic stereotypes, suggests how the MSM discourse has devolved regarding a complex conflict involving multiple players and interests. PS Declassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major and Woerner.
I’ve said before that the US and others were not simply innocent bystandders and observers in 2014.
But is is ridiculous to propose that there was a capacity to mobilise millions in protest against Yanukovych.
It is equally ridiculous to propose that the Ukrainian Rada could be manipulated to vote 328 to zero to remove Yanukovych.
The entire debacle is due to the arrogance and hubris of Yanukovych.
In 2004, the Ukrainians voted for the so-called pro-Russian candidate Yanukovich. The ‘Orange revolution’ was organised in response and with the backing of western powers, and the results of elections were cancelled. Nationalist media and Western press alleged ‘poisoning’ of Yuschenko by pro-Russians. Yuschenko was elected after a third try at elections (in violation of the constitution). Over 3 years Yuschenko lost popularity due to his nationalist and neoliberal policies. The 2009 elections saw Yanukovich elected. Nonetheless, Yanukovich ignored the development of radical nationalist groups and militants, which he considered a marginal minority.
Instead of competing in elections, the neo-nationalists mounted a coup with western support in 2014. In 2010, Yanukovich had refused an offer from the US to hold joint military drills with US forces in Ukraine and chose to maintain neutrality instead. The coup caused the secession of Crimea and Donbass and civil war.
Ukrainians voted for Poroshenko – former minister of the deposed Yanukovich and oligarch. Poroshenko promised to finish the civil war in just 2 weeks and guarantee rights for all minorities, including the Russians in Ukraine. In power, he ordered to continue an offensive on Donbass and adopted a radical nationalist agenda.
2019 elections, Zelensky – hated by nationalists and promising to end the war – is elected. In power, Zelensky reverted to the ultra-nationalist policies of his predecessors.
You’re ignoring the actual cause of the mass public protests.
In order to gain office, Viktor Yanukovych committed to seeking membership of the European Union.
Ukrainians had observed the increasing prosperity of their neighbours through closer relations with Western Europe, and the relative economic stagnation of those that continued to rely on an economic relationship with Russia.
However Yanukovych did a 360° turn, a backflip, and sought to join the Russian trade zone.
Was he bribed, threatened, blackmailed, dishonest? Take your choice.
But Ukrainians had experienced Russian colonisation/domination and didn’t wish to experience more of it.
The disaffection towards Yanukovych was widespread and the protests were about the biggest in contemporary Europe
The evidence is that Yanukovych lost the support of the essential apparatus of government, the police and military. They weren’t willing to sufficiently and violently suppress the protesters.
Yanukovych abandoned his office and was formally removed by the Ukrainian Rada, the vote to remove him was 328 to zero.
The entire debacle is a result of the decions of Yanukovych.
More evidence of Trump and Abbott’s mate Hungarian PM Orbán afraid of upsetting Putin & Project to break up the EU?
Last year or this Russia bombed Boeing in Kiev, yesterday another US company Flex.
Latter is based in ethnic Hungarian part of Ukraine; crickets from Orbán & Trump while Hungarian President Sulyok cited Russia in tweet, then deleted ‘Russia’ in new Tweet….
Have no idea why the Dems don’t call this out and describe Trump as ‘weak’?
Probably because I’m annoying, I have repeatedly posted the following on sites related to Jeffrey Sachs (for the past few months).
No one has dealt with the issues.
°°°°°°°°°
I wonder whether one of the Jeffrey Sachs supporters would like to deal with his narrative about Russia and Ukraine.
Sachs believes Russia was provoked due to NATO expanding, in breach of a commitment.
Would anyone like to deal with the following-
* Putin has previously said Ukraine joining NATO was a matter for Ukraine and NATO.
* the exchange regarding NATO expansion was non binding, it was verbal.
* it was an exchange with the Soviet Union, not with Russia
* the Soviet Union was comprised of 15 countries. Russia was only one
* many of the other 14 countries have specifically sought to release NATO from that verbal exchange because they sought to join NATO.
* does anyone believe a verbal exchange is binding on future administrations?
* does Putin comply with the verbal exchanges (or even written commitments) of Yeltsin?
I think Sachs exaggerates and misrepresents the verbal exchange
From the research centre OSW, based in Poland, in 2013 prior to the coup — In the current economic situation, the Ukrainian government has stated that it cannot afford to sign and implement the provisions of the Association Agreement (with Europe.) According to available estimates, the agreement’s impact on the Ukrainian economy in the initial period would be negative, in connection with the abolition of tariff barriers, opening up the market, and the need to adapt to EU norms and standards. The ruling elite in Kyiv fear that the difficult reforms that the Association Agreement requires would lead to a further decline in support for the government and destabilise the economy. The positive effects of adopting the agreement with the EU would in fact only be felt in the long term. Therefore, the best choice from the government’s point of view is to maintain the current model of the state and the economy, and thus postpone the socially costly modernisation to the further future.
In order to stabilise the economic situation, Ukraine needs approximately US$15 billion of foreign credit. Negotiations with the IMF have been under way since last year. Kyiv may have been hoping that signing the Association Agreement with the EU would positively influence the Fund’s ultimate decision. The IMF did not intend to abandon their most important conditions for granting the loan, but did express a readiness to spread them out over time. However, the government in Kyiv stated that these conditions were unacceptable because of their social costs. The most important problem is the IMF’s demand that the price of gas be increased by 40% for individual customers, and that budget expenditures be reduced, which would mean the need for painful budget cuts in the pre-election period. As a result, it is highly unlikely that Ukraine will reach any agreement with the IMF in the current circumstances.
So to summarise what actually happened in Ukraine — Yanukovych issued what in the consulting world is called a Request for Proposal (RFP), i.e., a feeler to see who could offer the most promising plan for helping Ukraine escape insolvency. After initially tilting toward the EU proposal (before he learned of its draconian IMF small print), he later shifted to the less onerous offer from Russia. There was no threats or bribes or blackmail — after months of negotiations Yanukovych extracted from Russia a better deal; a more generous $15 billion loan and discounted natural gas.
He got cold feet with the EU deal in November 2013 when economic experts in Kiev advised him that the Ukrainian economy would suffer a $160 billion hit if it separated from Russia, its eastern neighbor and major trading partner.
There was also the West’s demand that Ukraine accept a harsh austerity plan from the International Monetary Fund.
The deliberate destabilisation of Ukraine that followed is what happens when economic ideology dominates political thinking and over-rides diplomacy and common sense.
Liberal democracies cannot tolerate alternative systems of government and finance.
For liberals, it’s the IMF way or the highway to hell.
We saw similar in the case of Norway, where the OECD tried to bring about cuts to social security in a country that was perfectly capable of running its own budgets successfully, without interference from external ideologues.
The conflict in Ukraine is just a battle for global economic domination instigated by Western financial interests
I couldn’t figure out where to place the following link for a great piece of satire and dig at humanity, so.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pKMV6e5kEo
GL, that’s a great clip.
Fortunately for humanity, mindless militarism is not a feature of most of us.
But unfortunately for humanity, we allow the development of political systems that allow or even encourage, the power-hungry to rise to the top.
Until we as a species develop systems that inhibit socio-pathic tendencies, the pattern will continue.
It can be done.
Sachs has been linked to Russia since fall of the USSR and is linked to the Rockefeller Foundation, previously funded by Standard Oil/Exxon, ie UN Sustainability green wash, fossil fuels and avoidance of related regulatory constraints inc the EU.
Sachs also recently attended a conference in Moscow centred around Bannon’s chum Dugin, with Anglo RWNJs, faux anti-imperialists and conspiracy theorists including luminaries such as Alex Jones, George Galloway and Errol Musk…..
Seems old fossils including Atlas Koch Network*, GOP, Tories/Reform and Putin’s oligarchs all share strong antipathy towards the EU.
DeSmog found that Koch’s anti-Ukraine Heritage, which developed Project 2025 with Tanton Network and partnered with Hungarian Danube Institute supported by PM ‘mini Putin’ Orbán and employs Fox Board’s Abbott….
In Finland Tampere University’s Russian Disinfo Research Unit has public media outlet Vatnik Soup on faux anti-imperialist tankies opposing Ukraine, NATO and the EU.
They have a profile on Sachs, (Koch & Putin’s) Mearsheimer et al and several Australians including Kostakidis, Assange etc al.
It’s important to always have a look at the background of Steve’s sources.
Also interestingly is the approval of a politician who chooses to find a rationale for a policy diametrically opposi to the position he has take to the public for his election.
Does anyone seriously believe this would be blandly accepted by the voters of any democracy? Without huge protests? When it is the very issue that shapes and directs the future of the society?
Steve seems to think that the public should just cop this from politicians.
Seriously?
And that’s without getting into the credibility of findings of any benefits of joining the Russian trade zone
Also the “coup” claim continues to be made, without credibility
“It’s important to always have a look at the background of Steve’s sources” says AC in rather grand fashion.
Having grabbed the casual reader’s notice with this intriguing opening foray, having created the expectation of a fascinating imminent revelation, the casual reader finds that… there’s nothing!
There’s no follow-up!
AC has nothing because there can only be nothing.
The source that has AC so concerned was a research centre from Poland.
Poland is a member of both NATO and the EU, and is an ally of Ukraine.
But this raises the question as to why AC is so concerned.
Well, it turns out that AC has seriously misrepresented the EU/Ukraine deal that Ukraine eventually rejected, and that misrepresentation has been exposed for what it is by an ally of Ukraine.
Ouch!
That hurts.
Steve, what you habitually neglect to deal with is the annoying (for you) fact that Yanukovych completely changed his position on the most important issue facing Ukraine at that time.
You seem to think the total about face should simply have been accepted by Ukrainians because Yanukovych had a rationale that you approve of.
Apparently he was entitled to implement the position completely opposite to his mandate without experiencing public opprobrium because (you say) he had a better offer.
Is that the standard you extend to all political figures?
“Apparently he was entitled to implement the position completely opposite to his mandate without experiencing public opprobrium because (you say) he had a better offer. Is that the standard you extend to all political figures?”
Did readers see what happened there?
Did you notice the “(you say)”?
It was not me that gave details of a better offer from Russia, it was a Ukraine ally that AC does not wish to discuss.
And the answer to the rather silly question is —
Er, yes.
I do expect leaders to act in the public interest.
That’s why we have elections.
That’s what democracy is all about.
Governments are elected to govern and are defeated at elections when the voters are unhappy.
Unless of course, one is a supporter of the US Empire, in which case, as with AC, democracy is an inconvenience to be side-lined where possible.
Which is exactly what the coup plotters did to Yanukovych, as AC well knows.
To end the violence, as a committed democrat he had signed an agreement overseen by France and Germany, to hold an early election, but the coup plotters, fearing a democratic outcome, prevented that happening.
No doubt the plotters were worried about the better offer from Russia.
Not too many voters when made aware of the issues would have voted for a 40% increase in gas bills and a cut to social security provisions.
There’s another reason that AC’s question is on the silly side.
AC has forgotten already about Zelensky, who was elected to end the civil war but instead escalated it.
Oh, what a tangled web we weave…
It seems Steve isn’t aware that Yanukovych abandoned his office on the same day he signed the agreement.
So deep was the disaffection towards Yanukovych the public didn’t accept a deal that would allow him remain in office for at least another year mire likelya yrar and a half. They sought his resignation.
The fact is that the decision of Yanukovych to seek to join the Russian trade zone, which was diametrically opposite to his commitment caused the mass protests, and the deaths of over a hundred of protesters at the hands of Yanukovych’s police and military.
Steve thinks abandonment of office and huge protests is a “coup”
It is another example of his CS Lewis standard of English language usage.
••••••••
Nonetheless it is telling that Steve doesn’t try to take issue with my rebuttal if the Jeffrey Sachs “Russia was provoked” rationale
“Steve thinks abandonment of office and huge protests is a “coup”
Yep, when armed protesters take over government buildings and fire on other protesters, when government ministers flee the country in fear for their lives, when a few days later neo-Nazis are given four ministries (including national security) in recognition of their crucial role, it’s a coup alright.
In fact, it could not be more coup-ish.
I should add, in regard to the agreement to hold early elections, that the document also provided for a power sharing arrangement until the election could be held. But such a generous gesture that was offered in the cause of national stability meant nothing to the coup plotters, and it means nothing to AC who has outed himself as a brazen defender of US imperialism.
Careful readers will note that AC has criticised a president who reversed a decision in order to protect the national interest, but has nothing to say about his man Zelensky who abandoned his commitment to end the civil war and instead escalated the conflict. For AC, a decision in the national interest is a crime, while escalating a civil war is not worthy of comment.
I am appalled.
But hey, AC is fine with that because that’s how US imperialism works.
A rejection of an offer (to remain president) by a mass public protest isn’t a coup.
Yanukovych fled because he lost public confidence and the police and military could not be relied on to comply with his directions.
After Yanukovych fled the Rada took control and appointed an interim president and set elections.
A coup? No.
There was no violent seizure of government, it was a popular uprising against a president who had completely lost public confidence.
So now we see AC trying to deny the blindingly obvious about what was unquestionably a coup.
He’s been reduced to repeating articles of faith that have no foundation.
In the fantasy world of western propaganda, armed protesters did not take over government buildings.
Far-right extremists did not fire on protesters.
Government ministers did not flee for their lives.
Protesters did not take over government buildings.
And neo-Nazis were not not given government ministries a few days later.
Because those inconvenient truths would interfere with the narrative.
AC has to believe the contrived narrative because, it would seem, he’s invested so much in it.
So much faith.
So much trust.
So the question arises — how does US imperialism get such a stranglehold on the ability of people to think for themselves?
From The Matrix — Morpheus: The Matrix is a system, Neo. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.
Hmmm …
So I asked Grok — Are supporters of US foreign policy hopelessly dependent on The System?
The answer came back — You don’t need AI to figure that one out, you drongo.
It seems that Grok’s courtesy component might need a little tweaking.
Here are a few widely accepted definitions of a “coup”
• a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
• a sudden, violent, and unlawful seizure of power from a government.
• a sudden decisive exercise of force in politics and especially the violent overthrow or alteration of an existing government by a small group
I’d point out that mass public protests demanding the end of a regime aren’t “a small group ”
Protests that last for months and months aren’t “sudden”
The killing of over 100 protesters , but a dozen of the Yanukovych police and military demonstrates where the violence was.
The abandonment of office by Yanukovych wasn’t “a seizure of power”
Nor was the subsequent actions of the Ukrainian Rada in appointing an interim president and calling of elections
°°°°°°°
I see Russia has reduced its economic growth forecast from 2.5% to 1.5%.
Mortgage rates remain at about 30%.
But apparently sanctions have no effect
From AC, who always has his finger on the economic pulse — “I see Russia has reduced its economic growth forecast from 2.5% to 1.5%. Mortgage rates remain at about 30%. But apparently sanctions have no effect.”
There’s always a tell-tale sign when AC is struggling to maintain a coherent argument — he diverts to tales of woe about the terrible state of the Russian economy.
But mixed in with this heartfelt concern, there’s a contradiction that rather deflates the economic argument.
It turns out that despite its debilitating economic agonies, Russia is also on the brink of global domination.
Sometimes these conflicting assertions that have been inserted into discussions for a couple of years now, are even presented on the one thread.
For example, at Executions – Human Rights Forsworn and Wars Fought, we see this — “remains largely impoverished despite its natural resources” and this “the risk of unchecked Russian expansion,” and this “Russia is a significant risk in Europe” and this “Putin saw this as his best opportunity to re-establish Russia’s colonial empire” and in case anyone was in any doubt — “brutal expansionist regime.”
So I asked Grok 🙂
“Can Russia be both economically on it’s knees, and yet also about to invade nearby countries?”
The answer came back “Russophrenia, is the belief or idea that Russia is simultaneously about to collapse, and also take over the world.
It is a mental condition suffered by those who are unable to differentiate between fact and fiction emanating from mainstream media outlets. It is particularly noticeable among those whose analytical skills are so wanting that they find it easier to accept the Hollywood version of history, and also noticeable among servants of the Empire of Lies. As a result, they struggle to accept that the US is no longer the greatest military power, having been surpassed by both China and Russia in the capacity to conduct land-based warfare. Russophrenia is particularly common among those who hide their admiration of the US by repeatedly referring to it as a flawed democracy.”
I think Grok should leave satire to the experts.
It’s certainly great progress that Strve is using AI. He can use all the help he can get in the intelligence department, artificial or otherwise
The really funny thing is that I’ve never used AI, and have no intention of using it, yet it has added another dimension to my bland existence.
Tied to this, is the fact that I’ve tried on several occasions to get AC involved in a bit of humorous by-play, but with no success at all.
I recommend that AC immerse himself in a good stiff dose of Grokking.
It’ll do wonders for his outlook on life.
Verbose self importance in the absence of personality doesn’t qualify as humour.
Hey, c’mon, enough of the assaults on my fragile ego!
And aren’t yer just a little bit grateful that now at least yer know what yer suffering from?
Trouble is, russophrenia’s only been around for a few years so they probably haven’t developed a medication for it.
But here’s an idea!
You could volunteer for the medical trials.
Just don’t let ‘em give yer the placebo!
Opposing apologists for a brutal, expansionist fascist regime, isn’t any form of phobia.
The fact is – those acting as the apologists have the serious intellectual incapacity and emotional disorders, as you so willingly and regularly demonstrate