Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technology etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There's always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and its agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha.

The larger question now, right now. It was forced. Why. No Russia didn't force it. They created an opportunity to go ahead. Hang on. It was forced.

I'll go back to reading the propaganda now. It's easier than thinking. They don't like you thinking, it pisses somebody off. Don't know why. There's a war, or something. Let me know if I am attacked.

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technology etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and its agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha.

The larger question now, right now. It was forced. Why. No Russia didn't force it. They created an opportunity to go ahead. Hang on. It was forced.

I'll go back to reading the propaganda now. It's easier than thinking. They don't like you thinking, it pisses somebody off. Don't know why. There's a war, or something. Let me know if I am attacked.

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technology etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and its agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha.

The larger question now, right now. It was forced. Why. No Russia didn't force it. They created an opportunity to go ahead. Hang on. It was forced.

QRussia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technology etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and its agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha.

The larger question now, right now. It was forced. Why. No Russia didn't force it. They created an opportunity to go ahead. Hang on. It was forced.

QRussia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technology etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and its agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technology etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for its agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for it agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, you made, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face. No, seriously. You're complict. Perhaps there's more to it. I always wanted to see a nuke go off. I dare you. Or did you think you can beat Nato without them. Hahaha

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for it agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

The first comment, must be head up your ass. It sees shit. Because it believes in whatever is in its face.

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for it agenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While also causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contain the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines, back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes and alignment.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and distract and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. They would have used them. They still might. Because yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines, while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of unalignmemt.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for itsgenda. Because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces change. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While alfo causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contains the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines. Back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and district and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. Although yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was more competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines while containing the competition. It forced a narrative.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of contention.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity has been created for itscsgenda.because there's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forces changed. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

But winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology, even food. While alfo causing massive spending on arms, and recommiting to partnerships aligning against their boogeyman. Hell it could even contains the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. Russia simply takes point and they will, who cares, except follow, what. Kick off, no it's all out war. It causes the redistribution of the supply lines. Back into sides. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any changes.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check, and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and district and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero, but it isn't. Although yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and then what emerges. Are the only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race and it's agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.

Russia has its own resources. Self sufficient within reasoning. It is the largest country on the planet. But what it lacks are the modern processors, and semiconductors, or the brands, and often the methods. It hasn't got the technical advantage it used too, in the days of the Soviet Union, where that tech was competitive. China however might, but again they lack the chips, and processors.

Winning on every front, not completely, and in a proxy war the West haven't even committed too, outside of limited armament and aid is a joke. A joke that falls in line with their agenda. It was an agenda of technology. Specifically divesting from oil and gas to certain extents, and rearranging supply lines while containing the competition.

They cut their own lines to cause a run off. Look how much it is affecting and will affect. It was planned. They must have known what would be caused. Hence the immediate lockstep, and previous charade of disunity.

It still might go to all out war, but it's not at that stage. It has been largely contained. The run off forces tech, and it rearranges supply lines. The perfect opportunity.There's huge profit to be had on the emerging tech replacing the current systems, not entirely, they still need many resources. But it forced changed. Immediately it looks damaging and will get far worse, and may yet still escalate into a larger war.

Winning a battle, or making cash off the current resources still being utilised is a joke to that game being played. It was orchestrated. It falls directly on the money. Into a bunch of narratives forcing change. Russian timing was perfect for that narrative. The climate change, bringing a rush to renewables and nuclear, for the future EVs and whatever technology even food, while causing massive spending on arms, and commiting to partnerships going back against their boogeyman that older competitor. Hell it could even contains the rogues, if it goes back to specific sides. As it causes the redistribution of the supply lines. Meanwhile a bunch of places go hungry demanding what kind of trade. Russia is in a war, largely sanctioned, but it simply cannot keep up with the demand. Food and fuel and technolofy etc. Therefore providing a larger opportunity to sell any later change.

There always larger war if indeed it commits more too it. There's always more pawns to sacrifice first. Or there's the castle, and indeed check and stalemate. I don't think there's checkmate, despite the propaganda designed to deflect and district and provoke, what? A hot war. Russia haven't nuked yet, reiterate that probability. It should be higher than zero. But yes it's wildfire. How much burns, where else catches alight, and thrn what emerges. Ate thd only questions. You seem to think they're ahead, in a much larger race send agenda. Without even considering it was designed. Why and for what.