You’re one of my favorite posters, bubble, but here I disagree. I don’t interpret the facts on the ground as evidence that white hats are determining everything the enemy does.

This is a war. War is all about adaptation to the realities of the battlefield.

I fully agree that white hats have “shaped” the battlefield. Scott Ritter discussed this concept in analyzing the Russian advances in Ukraine. It’s similar to chess strategy where your primary objective is to gain “control of the board.”

Control of the board or shaping the battlefield both force moves and limit effectiveness of your opponent. It allows you more latitude to counter or use the opponents moves against them.

But it doesn’t predict or contain everything your opponent does. It just makes it less likely - or impossible, for him to succeed.

That doesn’t mean he can’t land blows, inflict real harm, and cause extensive damage. The cornered animal is the most dangerous, and the threat is great.

Ukraine is an example. Do you think the deep state will not use nukes because “white hats are in control”? The deep state is going scorched earth. It’s not a matter of “if” they’ll use nukes but “how” they can get away with it with plausible deniability.

White hats are countering a deeply entrenched, longstanding global operation. There’s clearly many aspects that are still not in white hat hands, even when Trump was in office:

Vaccine agenda.
Geoengineering.
Federal reserve.
Food production.
Arms distribution.

Trump temporarily contained some of this and White hats are still mitigating or limiting — forcing them to make mistakes, miscalculate, expose their hand. That’s what is meant by Patriots in Control. It does not mean that everything the psychopaths do is a good move for white hats, intentional and part of the plan.