Appalachia energy BD, policy junkie and erstwhile poet longing for the Rockies. Author, “Distributed Generation: power paradigm for the new millennium”
Morgantown, WV
Joined June 2017
- Tweets18K
- Following2.9K
- Followers769
- Likes77.3K
Pinned Tweet
Current Local Time in Kyiv, Ukraine timeanddate.com/worldclock/u…
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
Call for a boycott of Black-owned businesses on Juneteenth. Put on the flyer that they “must go.” You would be finished by lunch. Condemned by everyone. Rightly.
This morning in Philadelphia, activists named six Jewish-owned restaurants, wrote that they “must go,” and picked the eve of the Kristallnacht anniversary for their ride.
Most people scrolling past do not even know what Kristallnacht was. Or what the Nazis did on April 1, 1933: stood outside Jewish shops, told Germans not to buy, painted Stars of David on the doors.
A bike ride is not Kristallnacht. But it borrows the playbook. Mark the shop. Warn the public. Call it justifiable.
Philadelphia’s neighbors had a different plan. They walked in the front door and bought lunch.
I write about the lesson in my latest No More Nice Jewish Girl: trishaposner.substack.com/p/…
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
This photo from Election Night in Boone, North Carolina, is a modern Norman Rockwell painting
📸 Credit: Noah Williford, @TheAppalachian
This is what happens when you’ve no idea what you’re doing beyond financial grift.
Moscow already agreed to these principles 50 years ago. The problem is, Putin will never, EVER uphold them.
President Trump today advanced an important discussion with several European leaders about the need for a broader European security architecture that can help establish the conditions for lasting peace.
Building on his leadership and the substantive work undertaken this week in Brussels with Ukraine, NATO, and our European partners, @SEPeaceMissions and I wanted to share some of the objectives guiding our ongoing discussions.
For more than 30 years, Europe and Russia have struggled to establish a sustainable security framework. Decades of mistrust, competing security concerns, and the devastating consequences of this war make this an extraordinarily difficult challenge, but one that is essential to lasting peace.
Our objective is to develop practical arrangements that address the security concerns of all sides, reduce the risk of future conflict, and create a more stable and predictable security environment.
We are exploring five principal goals: permanent security consultations, reliable crisis communications, greater military transparency, reciprocal measures to reduce escalation risks, and an enduring framework for long-term European security and stability.
Any arrangements must fully respect the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and independent decision-making of every nation. Each country will retain authority over its own security and alliances, and no country would have a veto over another’s sovereign choices. NATO will remain central to European collective defense, and this initiative would build upon existing institutions and commitments.
We will continue consultations through the Shell Bay format with Ukraine, NATO, the EU, and our European partners, expanding engagement to ensure that all relevant perspectives and ideas are considered. We will also engage Russia as part of the peace negotiations.
Next week in Abu Dhabi, the United States will convene the first trilateral peace discussions with Ukraine and Russia since February. All parties remain intensely engaged in preparing for substantive and productive negotiations. We will consult closely with our European partners on the sidelines and, if progress is made, aim to move toward a broader multilateral format with their direct participation.
These ideas continue to evolve, and we welcome thoughtful input. Creating the right structure will be critical to ending this war and transitioning from conflict toward conditions that make possible a durable peace.
This is difficult, detailed work. There are no easy solutions. But the opportunity to help end this devastating war and build a foundation for a more peaceful, secure, and prosperous Europe for generations to come makes it a challenge well worth undertaking.
We will see how these discussions develop and continue working intensively with all parties toward President Trump’s objective of a comprehensive and lasting peace.
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
In December 1960 the most famous writer in the world was checked into the Mayo Clinic under his own doctor's name, officially for his blood pressure, and given up to fifteen rounds of electric shock to the brain, and when he came out he could no longer write a sentence, and six months later he was dead.
Ernest Hemingway was 61. He had the Nobel Prize, the Pulitzer, the houses in Cuba and Idaho, and a head that had been battered more times than anyone could count. He had been blown up by a mortar in Italy in 1918, split his skull open in a London car crash in 1944, been thrown from a motorcycle by a shell in France the same year, and walked away from two plane crashes in Africa on consecutive days in 1954, the second leaving fluid leaking from his skull. He drank enormously. By 1960 he was paranoid, convinced the FBI was following him, unable to finish the Paris memoir he had nearly completed.
The Mayo psychiatrist, Howard Rome, treated it as depression and gave him the treatment of the day. Electroconvulsive therapy was the modern answer in 1960, quicker than analysis and tidier than the lobotomy it had replaced. Hemingway went home to Ketchum in January.
He was worse. Asked to write a single line for a presentation volume for the new President Kennedy, he sat at his desk for a week, could not do it, and wept that it just won't come anymore. In April his wife Mary found him in a state that terrified her, and he was flown back to Rochester for another course of shocks.
At the Mayo he told his friend A.E. Hotchner what the treatment had done. His memory was his capital, he said, the thing his whole trade was built on, and they had wiped it and put him out of business. "It was a brilliant cure but we lost the patient."
The clinic discharged him at the end of June as improved. On the morning of 2 July 1961, at home in Ketchum, he took his own life.
The psychiatrist who has studied his head injuries most closely, Andrew Farah, argues that the man in Rome's office was not simply depressed but living in a brain wrecked by a lifetime of concussions and drink, and that electricity was the last thing it needed. The FBI files released in the 1980s showed he really had been watched for years, which is a hard way to learn that a patient's paranoia was partly a report.
None of that got a hearing in 1960. The diagnosis was in the textbook, the treatment was in the textbook, and the patient's complaint that it was taking his mind was in the textbook too, listed as a side effect, expected and temporary.
They treated the most observant man in American letters for being wrong about what he was seeing, and the last thing he saw clearly was what they had done to him.
Excellent summary of the new Congress and its options regarding Presidential powers and foreign policy.
A couple of thoughts on foreign policy after the historic Democratic wave (sorry if any of this is depressing; we political scientists are almost as dismal as economists):
1. Do not expect a radical departure from Trump’s pro-Russia stance without substantial Republican support. The president’s Article II powers give him substantial control over diplomacy and the executive branch’s conduct of foreign policy, so Democratic control of Congress will not by itself change his Ukraine policy. Congress can investigate the administration, shape funding, condition aid, and pass legislation tightening sanctions. But any bill Trump opposes would face a veto, and overriding it would require a two-thirds majority in both chambers. The Lindsey O. Graham Sanctioning Russia and Iran Act gives the president broad waiver and termination authority, leaving him considerable room to avoid its sanctions, which is why I was skeptical of it.
2. On Iran, Congress has more leverage because Article I gives it the power to declare war. The War Powers Resolution of 1973 requires the president to end unauthorized hostilities within 60 days of submitting a report to Congress, unless Congress declares war or specifically authorizes the use of force. The president may extend that period by up to 30 days only if he certifies that military necessity requires time to withdraw U.S. forces safely.
If the 60-day period has expired without congressional authorization, Congress can invoke the resolution’s withdrawal requirement, though enforcement of the law has been contested. In practice, however, Iran’s actions in the Strait of Hormuz mean the United States is engaged and will likely need to remain involved to keep shipping lanes open. Congress can scrutinize how Trump prosecuted the war and use its oversight and funding powers to press his administration to end the conflict through diplomacy, but there are no easy ways to clean up the mess Trump has made in the Persian Gulf.
3. Article I gives Congress the power to impose tariffs and regulate foreign commerce, though Congress has delegated substantial tariff authority to the president through legislation. Republicans chose not to use their constitutional powers to rein in Trump. Democrats can seek to reclaim that authority by amending or repealing the statutes behind his tariffs. Any such bill, however, would face Trump’s veto, which Congress could override only with two-thirds support in both chambers. That would require significant Republican support. I’m optimistic some Republicans may come on board, given that tariffs were one of the reasons the party suffered such major losses in the midterms.
4. It is very unlikely that Trump could withdraw the United States from NATO unilaterally. Federal law bars withdrawal without either the consent of two-thirds of the senators present or an act of Congress, although the president’s constitutional authority to withdraw from a treaty remains legally contested. He can still weaken NATO by reducing U.S. forces in Europe or changing their posture and role, though Congress has restricted some troop reductions through funding limits. Congress can scrutinize his decisions and use legislation and appropriations to constrain them. Article II makes Trump commander in chief and gives him broad authority over the military’s operations, while Congress retains powers over funding, military regulation, and authorization for the use of force. That leaves him considerable room to reshape America’s military posture even if he cannot withdraw from NATO outright.
5. Should the PRC blockade or invade Taiwan, Congress could authorize U.S. military action through an AUMF or declare war. The Taiwan Relations Act commits the United States to maintain the capacity to resist coercion, but it does not guarantee that the United States would defend Taiwan. Trump could veto an AUMF or declaration of war; Congress would need two-thirds majorities in both chambers to override him. Even with authorization, Trump would retain operational control as commander in chief. If he chose not to commit U.S. forces, America might not intervene militarily.
The unfortunate reality is that Congress has delegated far too much authority to the executive branch, and Trump has abused those delegated powers. The Constitution also gives the president substantial leverage over legislation through his veto, which Congress can override only with two-thirds support in both chambers, and broad authority over foreign policy. Congress retains important powers over funding, trade, and the use of military force, but those checks may prove inadequate to restrain Trump. In a deeply interconnected world, security and economic challenges abroad can have far-reaching effects at home, giving him ample opportunity to further damage America’s standing and prospects during the remainder of his term.
Two changes are needed to prevent another Trump-like figure from wielding power in the same way. A future Democratic administration should work with Congress to restore legislative authority in areas where Congress has delegated too much of its Article I power to the executive branch. Congress should also give serious consideration to a constitutional amendment limiting the broad discretion the president now enjoys over foreign policy.
After watching this, remember to go outside turn around three times and spit so you don’t tempt the wrath of the you knows on top of the thing.
Excellent summary of AI’s most crucial gap: experience
Buckminster Fuller, who was wrong about a lot of things in a way that was usually more interesting than other people being right, noticed something in the 1930s that still holds true.
He noticed that technology does not primarily get bigger. It gets thinner.
The transatlantic cable got lighter per unit of message. The building got lighter per unit of enclosed volume. The engine got lighter per unit of horsepower. Each generation of a technology tends to accomplish the same function with less stuff, and then with less stuff again, until at the limit the stuff approaches zero and only the function remains.
He called this ephemeralization : doing more and more with less and less until eventually you can do everything with nothing.
And here were it gets interesting. What got eaten, in the first wave, was objects: my door key became a fingerprint.
What's happening today is the second wave: the AI paradigm shift. It’s our thought patterns, our decisions, our generative processes, our creativity, and our communication and coordination with each other that is being ephemerized.
And I think judgment abstraction has two consequences.
First, the output is not checkable at a lower cost than producing it. To verify a summary you must read the document. To verify a strategic recommendation you must do the strategy. The thing that made calculators safe (verification being orders of magnitude cheaper than generation) simply does not hold for the class of work being absorbed now. Which means verification won't happen because the economics forbid it. A check that costs as much as the work is not a check. It's a second attempt.
Second, the stairs are being removed as a consequence of using the lift. The way you stay able to judge a draft is by having written drafts. The capability is maintained by its own exercise and by nothing else. So the fallback and the thing it's a fallback for are the same muscle, and the system that replaces the muscle also stops the training.
This is Lisanne Bainbridge's irony of automation, which she wrote down in 1983 and which the aviation industry spent the next forty years rediscovering at great expense: automate the easy 99% and you have designed a job where a human with no recent practice must handle the hardest 1% with no warm-up, at the worst possible moment, on the basis of a mental model the automation has been maintaining on their behalf.
Airlines eventually responded by mandating hand-flying. No knowledge-work organization on earth currently mandates hand-thinking.
Now this is a writer. Happy Halloween everyone
I handed out candy tonight, and somewhere around the fortieth kid I stopped being a guy with a bowl and became a researcher.
I started wondering if an AI could build a full psychological profile of a person just from how they pick candy. I'm not sure it needs to. I think I could.
There were the ones who grabbed and went. No hesitation, no regret. I admire these people. I also suspect they've never read a terms-of-service agreement in their lives.
There were the label readers: gluten, nuts, dairy. Some of them had real allergies, and God bless their careful parents. Some were nine years old and already reading ingredients like a lawyer reads a contract. Those kids will do very well, and they will never fully relax.
Then there were the touchers. They touched every single piece, picked one up, put it back, picked up another, and had to be gently guided toward a decision by a parent saying "honey, there are other houses." I've had dinner with this person. I've been to their wedding. Twice.
There were the fistful kids. The sign said take one. They took five. Not because they didn't see the sign, but because the rules were clearly written for other people.
And then my favorite: the ones who picked, walked two steps, looked at what the kid behind them chose, and looked back at their own hand with doubt. I wanted to tell them, "It's a Kit Kat, not a mortgage." But I didn't, because I knew I'd be lying. For some people it's never just a Kit Kat. It's the first rehearsal for every "what if I could have done better" they'll carry into adulthood.
I watched the parents too. Some whispered "just one, say thank you." Others nudged with "grab the good ones." Some steered their kid toward the Reese's while the kid stared longingly at the Skittles. I knew that look. I've seen grown men in my office with that exact face, decades later, explaining why they became an accountant.
And I wondered: how many parents would just trust their kid to choose? Not the right candy, just their candy. Because every time we reach over a small shoulder and redirect that little hand, we're teaching something. Sometimes it's wisdom. Sometimes it's "your instincts can't be trusted." Sometimes we're quietly shaping them into someone they were never meant to be. And sometimes we're just raising a kid who will one day pick the Skittles out of spite and stop calling home on Sundays.
Most of us don't need our parents to choose for us. We need them to stand on the porch while we choose for ourselves.
When I was little we had a rule: you get what you get, and you don't get upset. I used to think it was about candy. It turns out to be most of the instruction manual.
Because I know people who chose their careers like this. And their partners. Some grabbed fast and never looked back. Some read every label and still felt unsafe. Some touched everything and committed to nothing. And some chose well, then spent twenty years staring at somebody else's hand.
The candy was never the problem. The problem is the hand you keep looking at after you've already chosen.
Pick one. Say thank you. Enjoy it.
There's always another house, but you only get to walk down this street once.
Happy Halloween. Shavua Tov.
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
THE PERKINI REPORT: THE 2028 REALITY CRISIS
What if the most obvious financial bubble in all of history turns out to be.... a bubble... and what if that is just really.... bearish?
there were signs, there are always signs 🤣
free link:
hub.tslombard.com/the-perkin…
inspired by @citrini
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
Here’s a rather extraordinary discovery: humanity seems to have interrupted the beginning of the next ice age. We thought it might happen in the future, but the evidence suggests it's already happened.
A new study in Science argues that the next major glaciation had already begun roughly 2,000 years ago, before modern warming reversed the trend in the 20th century.
The evidence comes from the Barnes Ice Cap on Baffin Island, the last surviving remnant of the enormous Laurentide Ice Sheet that once covered much of Canada and reached as far south as Illinois.
Because Barnes is frozen directly to its bedrock, advancing ice buries and preserves vegetation beneath it. Researchers radiocarbon dated plants emerging as the ice retreats to reconstruct its history.
They found that after melting to a minimum extent around 3,000 years ago, the ice began expanding again about 2,000 years ago. The researchers interpret this as the earliest stage of the next glacial period.
Left to natural orbital cycles, that cooling would have unfolded extremely slowly, potentially taking tens of thousands of years to rebuild a continent spanning ice sheet.
But around 1960, the trend reversed. Summers became warm enough that Barnes began losing more ice than it gained, despite Northern Hemisphere summer sunlight continuing to slowly decline in a way that should favor renewed glaciation. Greenhouse warming had (thankfully) overwhelmed the natural cooling tendency.
The Barnes ice cap may now disappear entirely within the next few centuries, removing the final remnant of an ice sheet that repeatedly served as the nucleus for much larger glaciations.
There is a remarkable deep time perspective here. For millions of years, orbital cycles have pushed Earth between warmer interglacials and colder glacial periods. According to this study, that ancient cycle had started turning once again.
Then, in the geological equivalent of an instant, humanity pushed hard enough in the opposite direction to stop it.
Just so we're clear, this is a very very good thing.
📸 Geology Sciences
Sources:
1) phys.org/news/2026-10-global…
2) science.org/doi/10.1126/scie…
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
Jewish History: Yud, Hey, Vav, Hey: The Name We Do Not Speak
There is something about Judaism that many people outside our faith don’t understand. We don’t casually speak G-d’s most sacred Name. In fact, many of us won’t even attempt to pronounce it.
The four Hebrew letters, י-ה-ו-ה, are known as the Tetragrammaton. In Hebrew, we call them Yud, Hey, Vav, Hey.
These four letters appear thousands of times throughout the Hebrew Bible, but Jewish tradition teaches us to treat the Name with extraordinary reverence.
Here is something many don’t realize. We don’t know with absolute certainty how the Name was originally pronounced.
Ancient Hebrew was written primarily without vowel markings. Although scholars have proposed reconstructions of the pronunciation, the original vocalization was not preserved with certainty in Jewish tradition.
In ancient Israel, the Name was pronounced in certain sacred Temple rituals. The High Priest pronounced it during the Yom Kippur service.
Over time, Jewish practice became increasingly protective of the Name’s sanctity, and its pronunciation was avoided.
Today, when reading Torah or praying, we generally substitute Adonai, meaning “my Lord.” In everyday conversation, we say HaShem, which simply means “the Name.”
This is also why you’ll often see Jews write G-d rather than spelling out the English word. It is an additional custom of reverence, although English words for G-d do not carry the same halachic status as the sacred Hebrew Names.
For us, this isn’t superstition. It’s respect.
Judaism has preserved this distinction for centuries. Some things are considered too sacred to be treated as ordinary words.
And when I see people casually attempting to pronounce the four-letter Name, or now wearing trendy apparel with it “spelled out “, I often wonder whether they understand the history and significance behind it.
We don’t avoid the Name because we’ve forgotten G-d. We avoid pronouncing it because we remember its holiness.
And perhaps most importantly, we recognize that we are not holy enough to utter His most sacred Name. That humility is not a weakness of our faith. It is an expression of our reverence for HaShem.
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
Jewish History: The Ancient Origins of Shabbat Shalom ✡️
Every Friday, as the sun begins to set, Jews around the world greet one another with two beautiful Hebrew words: Shabbat Shalom.
But have you ever wondered where this greeting comes from?
The tradition behind these words stretches back thousands of years, to the very foundations of Jewish civilization.
In Hebrew, Shabbat (שבת) comes from a root meaning “to cease” or “to rest.” Shalom (שלום) means peace, but its meaning goes much deeper. It also conveys wholeness, harmony, and well-being.
The origins of Shabbat are found in the Torah.
In Genesis 2:2–3, G-d ceases from His work of creation on the seventh day, blessing and sanctifying it.
In Exodus 20:8–11, the Israelites are commanded to remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.
And in Exodus 31:16–17, Shabbat is described as an everlasting covenant between G-d and the children of Israel.
Thousands of years before modern labor laws, weekends, or the concept of a weekly day off, the Jewish people were commanded to set aside an entire day for rest, holiness, and spiritual renewal.
Shabbat wasn’t simply about stopping work. It was about remembering who we are, honoring our Creator, and recognizing that life is about more than labor.
The exact expression Shabbat Shalom developed within Jewish tradition over time. Although the Torah establishes Shabbat and frequently speaks of peace, it does not record those two words together as the familiar greeting we use today. Yet the sentiment is ancient.
For generations, through exile, persecution, dispersion, and return, Jews have continued welcoming the Sabbath.
From Jerusalem to Poland, from ancient Babylon to modern America, the traditions of Shabbat have helped preserve Jewish identity across centuries and continents.
Today, when one Jew says Shabbat Shalom to another, we are doing more than wishing someone a peaceful weekend.
We are participating in a living tradition that connects us to our ancestors, our Torah, and one another.
Empires have risen and fallen. Kingdoms have disappeared. Languages and borders have changed.
But the Jewish people are still here, welcoming the seventh day.
Shabbat Shalom, mishpacha. שבת שלום 💙✡️
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
🇺🇦🇩🇪 THE END OF PUTIN'S DRONES! GERMANY IS SENDING UKRAINE ITS LATEST SKYRANGER AIR DEFENSE SYSTEMS!
Germany is supplying Ukraine with advanced Skyranger mobile air defense systems manufactured by the German defense company Rheinmetall.
These modern, highly automated air defense systems are designed to intercept drones, cruise missiles, and other low-flying aerial threats, providing a powerful additional layer of protection against Russian attacks.
Key features and capabilities:
Drone-free zones: Each Skyranger unit is designed to protect a designated area against hostile unmanned aerial vehicles. Under suitable operational conditions, a single system can help establish a protective zone covering approximately 4 × 4 kilometers.
Intelligent ammunition: The system uses programmable airburst ammunition. Instead of relying solely on a direct hit, its cannon fires projectiles that release a concentrated cloud of tungsten subprojectiles at a precisely calculated point in front of the target, dramatically increasing the probability of destroying incoming drones.
Versatile platforms: The Skyranger family includes the Skyranger 30, equipped with a 30 mm automatic cannon and optional short-range air defense missiles, and the Skyranger 35, featuring a powerful 35 mm KDG revolver cannon. The modular turret can be integrated onto armored vehicles, including Boxer platforms, while the Skyranger 35 has also been developed for integration with Leopard 1-based vehicles.
High rate of fire: Depending on the configuration, the weapons can achieve rates of fire of approximately 1,000–1,250 rounds per minute, allowing rapid engagement of incoming aerial threats.
For Ukraine, these deliveries are particularly important as Russia continues launching waves of attack drones against cities, energy facilities, and other critical infrastructure.
Putin's drones are facing an increasingly dangerous enemy. Germany is helping Ukraine build a stronger shield over its skies. 🇺🇦🇩🇪
Anne-Marie Borbely-Bartis 🇪🇺🇺🇦 retweeted
Tonight, fires are raging around St Petersburg after another Ukrainian drone attack. All because a 74-year-old man in the Kremlin decided that conquering his neighbours was more important than giving his own people a future.
Imagine what Russia could have been. Your children studying at universities in Paris, Oxford or Berlin. Families spending summers on the Mediterranean, skiing in the Alps, discovering Rome, Barcelona and Copenhagen. Russian scientists working alongside Europe's finest minds. Businesses flourishing, borders opening, young Russians falling in love, travelling freely and building prosperous lives in the world's most extraordinary neighbourhood.
And Russia's vast oil wealth could have continued filling the national savings account, building a financial cushion for a rainy day and securing the prosperity of future generations. Instead, that fortune has been drained by war, and the country's financial future has been mortgaged to one man's imperial ambitions.
You had an entire continent on your doorstep, ready to trade, cooperate and prosper.
Instead, you have sanctions, burning oil facilities, military funerals, censorship and a generation sacrificed to one elderly man's imperial fantasies. Children raised on militaristic propaganda, families struggling with poverty and alcoholism, and young men sent to die in Ukrainian fields.
And your great international friendship? North Korea. A miserable dictatorship famous for prison camps, hunger, compulsory displays of loyalty and children taught to march in formation.
Now Russia's future is increasingly tied to the failed Trump regime. And if you believe a man whose business empire has seen six corporate bankruptcies involving casinos and hotels is going to rescue the Russian economy, you may be in for another disappointment. Sorry, but Donald Trump is not Russia's financial salvation.
You could have shared Europe's prosperity. Instead, Putin has brought you closer to Pyongyang, with a bankrupt casino magnate as your supposed lifeline.
What a catastrophic waste of a great country's future.
Oh well, anyway.
BREAKING: Ukraine has just struck the St. Petersburg oil port and set it ablaze, with massive fires rising, one of Russia's largest fuel storage and export facilities.
Zelensky said two days ago that Ukraine will restart major strikes on Russian energy. "The block on attacking refineries is out. We're done."
Zelensky knows that with Trump’s support, Putin will NEVER stop trying to take all of Ukraine. The only option they have is to destroy Putin’s ability to continue the invasion.
Ukraine launched one of its biggest drone attacks this year on Russia overnight on Saturday, hitting a key oil terminal in defiance of President Donald Trump's demand it stop hitting Russian energy infrastructure. cnn.it/4isgzmB
Trump is absolutely not “trying to broker peace” in Ukraine.
Trump is trying to SELL Ukraine to Russia.
Every word, every action is dedicated to this end, and he doesn’t care how many Ukrainian lives are lost.
Directly providing aid and comfort to the enemy. No wonder so many bots and trolls are actively shouting that Ukraine is the real enemy.
This is the very definition of treason.
How to recognize a Russian bot account:
1. Claims to be American but only repeats Russian propaganda.
2. Claims to be Ukrainian but only repeats Russian propaganda.
3. Claims to be UK but only repeats Russian propaganda.
There’s a pattern here…..
